Freeway blogging (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD| AfD)

Defined in US News and World Report in the December 17, 2007 issue, and now there are 6 Google News Archive Hits. Minimally copy and paste to my user page so I can work on it from there. Google News has: [1] Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• I have no opinion on this matter at this time, but from what I can tell this is a request regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway blogging and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeway blogging. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• I assume you're referring to Roadway blogging, several articles were merged into that one (including Freeway blogging), and then it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway blogging in December 2006. I have put the last version of it at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Roadway blogging. -- Stormie ( talk) 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, solid consensus to delete in the roadway blogging AFD. -- Core desat 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I think there are sufficient references to restore immediately under one term or the other. DGG ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Mr. Norton's version looks better, so I won't comment on it (he can move it to mainspace when he's ready, as far as I'm concerned), but endorse original deletion as that content had no reliable sources, justifying a closure of delete. Xoloz ( talk) 10:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Ancients (Farscape) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Peacekeeper (Farscape) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_11#Ancients_.28Farscape.29, I have created a draft with the userfied information at User:Sgeureka/Races in Farscape (with a lot of material that was kept in a recent AfD and which still needs to de-cruftified). There wasn't so much to be merged from Ancients (Farscape) because it was just plot, but Peacekeeper (Farscape) had some usable destriptions of the race. As I said before, the merged article content can be sourced from the show and the scifi.com website mentioned at the end. The article can be further expanded by including conception info from e.g. The Creatures of Farscape: Inside Jim Henson's Creature Shop. Reynolds & Hearn Ltd. ISBN 978-1903111857 so that the article would pass WP:FICTION. If I read User talk:Eluchil404's response correctly, I need to present the new article draft for evaluation here before I can move it to main space, so this is what I'm doing hereby. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Restore/Allow. The draft could be moved directly into mainspace on the theory that it is sufficiently reworked to not be a G4 of the deleted articles (besides which there was considerable support for a merge in the AfD's). But it is probably better to ask here and see if anyone has an objection. I don't. It looks like a reasonable draft which should be allowed (though subject to future AfD's if people see fit). Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Eluchi. This has been rewritten enough to be considered a different article (not to be confused with a different topic for the article). -- Ned Scott 23:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Restore/Allow -- per the above. ditto. // Fra nkB 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Sorry, but when did we need to start asking permission to do things like this? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Deletion policy notes that If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. Just do it. Hiding T 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment go ahead and add it, looks fine to me, totally different from the old article. RMHED ( talk) 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment as initiator (or whatever this is called). Since the comments here were encouraging, I was bold and moved my draft to Races in Farscape, and moved Ancients (Farscape) and Peacekeeper (Farscape) as #redirect [[Races in Farscape]] {{R from merge}} into mainspace also. GFDL is alright, and the merged new article has a good chance to establish notability. Someone can close this review if they also consider everything alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:FGwiki ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| TfD)

This is a template that linked to the Family Guy Wiki that is hosted on Wikia. No consensus to delete, nor does the template violate WP:EL. WP:EL says to avoid "...Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Family Guy Wiki, buy any reasonable measure of such things, has both. Further more, editors that help keep excessive plot summary off of Wikipedia know the value of having alternative outlets easily available to both readers and editors. Personally, I believe this deletion happened because of paranoia about not wanting to be seen as endorsing a Wiki that hosted by Wikia, rather than the merits of the wiki itself. The offer to link to such sites is in no way limited to just Wikia, as documented on Meta:Interwiki map. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Agree SharkD ( talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore, clear case of TfD closer ignoring both unanimous consensus to keep, and also precedent: see Template:Wookieepedia box, Template:Wowwiki, Template:HarryPotterWiki, etc., which are similar templates that have all been discussed on TfD in the past and kept. I also would dispute the closing admin's claim that the Family Guy wiki does not have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" - a cursory glance reveals a history going back to May 2005 ( [2]) and a claim of more than 1200 articles ( [3]), which sounds like a lot to me for a single TV show. -- Stormie ( talk) 11:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Closing admin statement: I could care less about who hosts the wiki. It receives only a few hundred edits per day and has less than 200 registered users. There is no reason to link this from every page using a template. When I closed the TfD I said nothing about the suitability of FGwiki as an external link - I said that it was not a viable use of a template, although I did quote the external link policy in so deciding. As for the templates you raise above - the first is not linked to any articles and should be deleted, the second violates policy in the same way that this template does, and the third was only kept because its nomination was part of an edit war. As I stated in my close, FGwiki adds nothing to an article. If an article on a Family Guy episode became an FA, it would have everything that an FGwiki article would have. Thus the template violates the external link policy. If FGwiki had important information which otherwise could not be hosted on Wikipedia, that it would be a valid link, but I think that that occurs so rarely we don't need a template to do it. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

"When I closed the TfD I said nothing about the suitability of FGwiki as an external link"? But that's exactly what you said! "We shouldn;t link to the FG wiki because it is in violation of the external link policy."

"If FGwiki had important information which otherwise could not be hosted on Wikipedia" - well, recent strong consensus at AfD has made it very clear that detailed in-universe articles about fictional characters, etc., with only primary sourcing from the fictional work itself, cannot be hosted on Wikipedia. And that's exactly what all the wikis I mentioned above are dedicated to. I'm not sure why you want to discourage attempts to direct people to a more appropriate venue for reading and creating Free articles about such topics. -- Stormie ( talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

"It receives only a few hundred edits per day and has less than 200 registered users." That's pretty damn impressive for an independent wiki. Also, activity of a wiki doesn't always reflect the quality of it's contents. There are some wikis out there that are rarely edited, but simply because they don't need to be edited often.

The point in linking to the Family Guy Wiki is that they will have detail we will not go into, and they will have different content (regardless of detail) that Wikipedia doesn't have simply because of out MOS or that we're set up as an encyclopedia.

"If an article on a Family Guy episode became an FA, it would have everything that an FGwiki article would have." Err, what? FGW has the potential to have information that would cause an article to fail FA (not because of usefulness, but because of FA's criteria would have an article exclude such information). -- Ned Scott 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - we can't ship extended plot summaries off to Wikia then remoe the links. Also, Stormie makes a very good point. Will ^{( talk)} 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - This seems like a very useful template and the deletion ignored consensus and precedent. Ursasapien (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn -- clear case of editors involved should set methodology, not some idealized half-baked attempt at covering all bases. Tfd quidelines have been brain-dead for quite a while. Those few tens of bytes kept in a template have little cost to the project and the deletion discussions aren't generally well advised as they directly cost others their time to defend. // Fra nkB 18:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm going to endorse the close. Admins can only close what's in front of them. I also think the issues raised in this review need wider airing. If the wiki in question has more info than we do, it is because they are breaching copyright. Therefore, per WP:EL, we should not link to them. Hiding T 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Hiding T 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• What was in front of that admin was a consensus to keep the template. Copyright concerns with fictional coverage are a whole other issue, and something where we've only speculated. Even with that, linking to such sites doesn't violate copyright law even if we ourselves wouldn't have that much information, in the same way we link to websites that use more fair use images than we do. It's still legal where the servers are being hosted, the US, but Wikipedia is more strict because we want to focus on free-content, and avoid content that has conditions and red-tape.

• The only concern that I can really understand from the deleting admin is that it could be that we are over-linking FGW. I'm not sure how I feel about that, since it's more of a technical limitation than actually over-linking. We basically want to give a link to the over-all topic, and when someone views a page about a specific element, allow them to find that element on the external wiki. That's why it's a template, because it's a link that gains context depending on what page is being viewed. This is especially useful when we are dealing with other free-content wikis, and one that, even if unofficial, have a healthy relationship with Wikipedia, and allow us to direct both readers and editors to the appropriate place for extended details. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - admin's job is to establish consensus and use policy. Nothing in policy gave any reason to ignore consensus in this decision. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 02:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Varya_Akulova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Page was deleted because editors felt this was a hoax; however this is not the case. The Discovery channel ran a piece about her: [4] JudahH ( talk) 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Recreate only if additional sources are found. Otherwise keep deleted. Aside from that piece there don't seem to be any reliable sources that can can substantiate any of the claims. Don't restore the article deleted in the AFD, as it was simply one sentence and a fragment saying who she is and what she does (which is pretty much what the homepage of her website says). -- Core desat 04:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How many reliable sources do you need? I don't know if there are many other sources available on the internet, but the Discovery Channel is very well known. Besides, the pictures/video on her website (lifting people) substantiate the claims to a degree: weights may be hollow, but people are not. JudahH ( talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Well, an article needs multiple independent non-trivial sources to establish notability. One isn't multiple, and the subject's website isn't independent. -- Core desat 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You're changing your argument now: what you said before was that you wanted sources to substantiate the claims. As to that, I think a Discovery Channel show with footage of her winning a (regional) championship is enough substantiation. Now you're talking about notability. That's a bit more subjective. As far as I can tell, the Discovery show is her only notable appearance in Western media, but in Eastern Europe, she's had more press coverage. JudahH ( talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Same difference, pretty much. The claims are essentially assertions of notability (in this case, the assertion of notability is that the subject is the strongest girl in the world). -- Core desat 09:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• There's really nothing other than the Discovery Channel show, a UK tabloid, and presumably Russian tabloids. Despite her claims about being recognized by the Guinness Book, last I checked I found no evidence of that on the Guinness site. I really have to question how reliably researched and presented "My Shocking Story" on the Discovery Channel UK is. -- W.marsh 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

As for the Guinness site: check again--the only weightlifting record they mention at all is "Most weight lifted with an ear". In other words, most of the Guinness records are not posted on their website. JudahH ( talk) 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

So is she mentioned in the print version? What year/page? -- W.marsh 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know whether she's really in the Guinness book of records or not. If I get a chance to look at one, I'll check. JudahH ( talk) 06:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - the AfD was properly closed. Whilst there has been widespread publicity, significantly it has not been reflected in reliable sources, bar the Discovery Channel. At present, we have no reason to regard it as anything other than a hoax. Mind you, if the publicity continues then the whole event might become sufficiently notable to justify an Varya Akulova weightlifting controversy article. BlueValour ( talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: "it has not been reflected in reliable sources, bar the Discovery Channel."

"At present, we have no reason to regard it as anything other than a hoax."

You contradict yourself. First you note that she has been covered by the Discovery Channel, and call that a reliable source; then you say that there is no reason to regard it as anything other than a hoax. You can't have it both ways. If the Discovery Channel is a reliable source, than this is not a hoax. That's why I made the request for deletion review in the first place. JudahH ( talk) 06:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There are two issues here. Firstly, whether the page was properly deleted in the light of the AfD discussion and my view is that clearly it was. Secondly, should recreation be allowed. Though the Discovery Channel is regarded as a reliable source, even reliable sources make mistakes sometimes. Having read an extensive range of opinions on the web, I still think that this is a possible hoax. To convince me you need to produce additional reliable sources. Not that convincing me is pivotal; you need to convince sufficient editors to obtain a consensus for recreation. BlueValour ( talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Wow, this just stuns me. You've read an "extensive range of opinions on the web? And on the strength of these opinions that are based on nothing, you think that the Discovery Channel, which actually went to Ukraine and filmed her and her family, including her winning a regional weight-lifting championship against competition several years older, somehow made a mistake, and it's still a hoax. JudahH

• Recreate It meets our standards for sourcing. V, not truth, after all. Maybe the Discovery Chanenel was fooled, but unless someone says so it a published source we can not argue this. DGG ( talk) 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Recreate, lots of reliable sources in Russian [5] [6] [7] [8]. MaxSem^{( Han shot first!)} 14:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply