IS group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

OVERTURN Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IS_group). I am a new newbie, interested in cognitive science. I ran across this one and was fascinated. As a newbie, I did not enter into the deletion discussion. If I had, here is what I would have said. Keep. Notability is clear. Reliable sources are adequate, but thin. The discussion was cool. I found it to be more fun and interesting than many other Wikipedia entries that I read. As a newbie, I was troubled that no one mentioned Please do not bite the newcomers ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers) and Be bold ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold_in_updating_pages). The latter refers to updating pages, but as a newbie I would also encourage support for newbies being bold about adding quality information. This particular entry is of considerable interest (at least to those in cognitive science), reasonably sourced, definitely notable, and another newbie's first attempt at adding content to Wikipedia. Don't bite the newcomers. | Noticket 19:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per valid AfD, and problems regarding WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:COI. WP:BITE and WP:BOLD are good solid policy, but WP:BITE just means to not to be unduly mean to newbies, it doesn't necessarily mean that things they create won't be deleted. WP:BOLD also offers no deletion protection... indeed, the fact that articles can be deleted is one of the reasons why it's possible to be bold in creating them! To sum up, valid AfD, no reason given to overturn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. I'm going to go off on a tangent now...
• AAARGH. STOP CITING WP:BITE IN SUPPORT OF NEWBIE CONTRIBUTIONS NEVER BEING DELETED. That is not even close to what it says. - Amark moo! 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, perhaps I was misunderstood. I didn't mean to imply that because the item was by a newbie it should not be deleted. What I meant was that after carefully reading the discussion for this item, I felt that some editors were unduly mean to the newbie in their comments and (as a newbie myself) I was concerned enough to propose this deletion review. Also, if there is any possibility for gentle consideration of newbie entries, this should be kept in mind to encourage newbies to participate and keep coming back and keep improving the quality of their work. (From WP:BITE -- — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism). For myself, I have almost no experience editing Wikipedia items, but plenty of experience reading them. I have looked into this item a little bit and have some experience with some of the information referred to in the item. There are at least (what I would consider to be) 2 reliable sources to provide verifiability (some would argue with this, and have). There is significant notability and importance for at least a portion of the information. Other information in the item could use editing and, perhaps, removal. There are COI issues, but considering the newbie status, and the value of the information presented, they do not seem compelling enough to require deletion. Looking at the background of the originator of the entry, it would seem that Wikipedia would embrace individuals with such expertise. I do not deny that these issues are arguable or problematic, but not enough to convince me that this item should be deleted. On balance I think that this one is a keeper and deletion should be overturned. Please note that I don't feel this way about all Wikipedia articles, and have proposed deleting some. | Noticket 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The problem is that people being unduly mean does not mean they are wrong, so it's insufficient grounds for a deletion review. And while I respect your opinion, the fact is, the AfD shows that consensus goes against your opinion. - Amark moo! 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I agree with you -- being mean does not mean that those who provided comments are wrong. I am not disagreeing with the opinions or expertise of those who have weighed in on this issue. I am suggesting that greater civility should be encouraged. For example, if your AAARGH comment, above, was directed at my earlier comment, I do not see the necessity in your responding that way. It smacks of elitism. I already admitted to being a newbie prior to that, and thus am unfamiliar with your concerns with this issue, should you have any. Further, as a newbie, my concern about this particular entry is that the attitudes of some of the editors of the original entry, particularly their apparent elitism and arrogance (see, as just one example, the final addition on brevity, which appears to suppress the need for further discussion and communication), appear to my mind to indicate that they may have their own issues that prevented them from giving this particular entry sufficient consideration. I certainly am not saying that I am right and they are wrong. I am suggesting that perhaps the consensus has gone the way it has is because the issues here are complex and need to be looked at more carefully than they have been up to this point. There are clearly concerns about the entry. All of the concerns that have been raised appear to me to be legitimate. At the same time, this particular entry appears to be more on the edge than any I have previously looked at, and its creation was possibly hampered by its being the first entry of a newbie who was arguably unaware of appopriate policies and procedures. Still, on balance, my preference would be to not throw away the baby with the bathwater. I feel that this particularly entry has enough going for it that it should not be deleted, but should be reinstated, be edited, and then improved by community input. Finally, as stated before, the entire process would be improved if experienced editors tried as hard as possible to not be snide or curt when dealing with newbies (or anyone else for that matter). You are not going to improve the quality of Wikipedia if you chase away those who are trying, in their own stumbling ways, to make valuable contributions. | Noticket 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Please note that I am the original creator of the IS group entry and have an (unintentional) COI with the entry. Sorry about that. Thus, I will not be working on this one again. Couldn't agree more about the civility comments. It certainly has made me question my interest in the Wikipedia enterprise. At an editor's suggestion, some content will be moved elsewhere. Ddp224 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, sorry, the more well-reasoned comments on AfD were right: we would need non-trivial external sources. Please don';t be too disillusioned, what you have discovered is that Wikipedia is populated by humans, with all that entails. Sometimes it's great, other times it sucks badly. I suspect that your being here would improve the great-to-suck ratio, which is all any of us can do. Guy ( Help!) 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Guy, thanks for the kind words -- they are greatly appreciated. I also thank all of those who provided comments -- I have learned a lot from them. The problems with the IS group entry were entirely my fault. Because this was my first entry, I was misled by my previous experience using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and information resource. At the time I was also completely unfamiliar with the rules. Based on my experience and familiarity with Wikipedia entries up to that point, I had (mistakenly) thought that Wikipedia was a more "open" resource than its rules, unfortunately, allow it to be and thought that notability, verifiability, etc., could be established in other ways than Wikipedia presently considers to be appropriate. Because of the non-controversial and potentially useful content, I also did not understand, at that time, that COI or original research would be a problem. It was pretty clear to me then that many entries (if not most) are started and edited by individuals that Wikipedia would presently consider to be too close to the item -- I continue to believe that this can be a useful way to get entries started and to get individuals involved in the process. Also, I mistakenly assumed that these matters, if problematic, would be handled by the market forces and the ability of those reading the entry to change it and edit it in ways they saw fit. At that point in time, that is what my naive view of what Wikipedia was -- my understanding has since changed. My intent was to add value to Wikipedia by adding what I felt was an entry of unusual scientific interest and importance. As suggested by a Wikipedia editor, the IS group entry has been moved to Wikinfo, where it arguably more appropriately belongs, given Wikipedia's current policies. I am not disillusioned by my Wikipedia experience, though I will admit that my IS group experience has been a lot more fun and informative than has been my Wikipedia experience. I expect that I will continue to add to Wikipedia in appropriate instances and, hopefully, in appropriate ways. I was a little taken aback, however, by the needless rudeness of certain editors and their apparent lack of knowledge, which, in my mind, diminishes the quality of the enterprise. I hope that policies like verifiability and original research become more open in the future in Wikipedia, providing greater flexibility, and providing opportunities or exceptions for contributions where notability of the contributors and/or topic can be established in other ways. The quality and value of the information should be primary, not just the rules. In one of my former lives I used to be a regulator and very much understand the pitfalls of being driven or obsessed by the rules and regulations while ignoring common sense -- the unintended consequences can sometimes be enormous. Rules often have exceptions and frequently change. Again, thank you for your very kind words and for taking the time to look at the history of this particular entry and its demise. Ddp224 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I would make an exception for this one, but will withdraw my request for a Deletion Review, if that is allowable. | Noticket 18:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

2 Much Booty (In Da Pants) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

Closed as delete. Delete votes were not properly weighed - besides "kick it in the pants," many cited a historical guideline proposal, the rest claimed "no notability" although keep suggestions indicated the obvious "notability" of a charting single. Deletion must be overturned badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion valid AfD. Do you have any evidence to back up your accusation that "delete votes were not properly weighed"? While I'm not sure I would have voted to delete this myself, I don't see anything wrong with the debate or its closing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well, the obvious evidence is that when people say "not notable," and then people show various information that confers "notability," that proper weight wasn't given. I did ask the closing admin, and his/her response was that s/he " felt that the Delete votes were more convincing, and they were more numerous, suggesting vote counting and that s/he feels that a blanket "non-notable" is "more convincing" that verifiable facts about chart positions and true "notability." -- badlydrawnjeff talk 15:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Just as WP:NSONGS isn't a current guideline (though very few people cited it anyway), there's no actual guideline that says "achieving any chart position on any national chart confers notability." I would also note that at least one keep comment cited WP:MUSIC, which doesn't cover this at all. That it is obvious to you is nice, but apparently it wasn't obvious to everyone in the discussion. I'm therefore unsure how this is out of process when the only policy/guideline it seems to be violating is WP:ALLCHARTINGSINGLESARENOTABLE. GassyGuy 19:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Jeff, your reasoning seems to be based on an assumption that any charting song is explicitly guaranteed an article. Not so. WP:MUSIC is pretty clear that charting shows notability in artist articles, but whether the individual songs themselves get their own articles isn't spelled out in any policy or guideline that I know of. Hence the AfD debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
      • ...thus my point. Unless the debate works around "not notable" without any evidence being greater than "this is why it's notable," there's abolutely no way anyone could say that the delete suggestions could be "more convincing." They had no argument. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Again, "this is why it's notable" is based on personal opinion that charting = notability. "Not notable" is the opinion that that's not true. The burden of proof is never on the folks saying it should be deleted to prove that it isn't notable, but rather for irrefutable evidence to be presented that it is. The basic arguments are between, "It charted, therefore it is notable" (which is a personal opinion, not a policy) and "Its chart position is not enough to establish notability" (which is also not a policy). Nobody in the discussion had any real Wikipedia grounding. GassyGuy 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
          • No one's saying that anyone had any real policy or guideline on their side, though. But when there's no guiding document, and one side says "this is X because of Y and Z," and the other says "No, it's not," which side is stronger? -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
            • Neither one by my reckoning. GassyGuy 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
              • Interesting analysis. I don't get it. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                • I will try to explain, but I honestly don't think it's worthwhile. "X is notable because of Y" is an opinion. There is nothing that actually validates this premise. Therefore, it cannot be assigned a value of true. The argument there is "I believe X is notable because of Y." "Y does not establish X's notability" is also an opinion. There is no way to actually prove Y is an insufficient criterion to establish notability. When there's no policy which officially affirms that Y is sufficient, nor a policy which actually establishes than more than Y is necessary to establish notability, neither side actually has a very strong case. GassyGuy 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • Like I said, I don't get it. i guess we disagree, but I don't think WP:IDONTTHINKSO should ever trump actual efforts to demonstrate "notability" in the absence of a guiding principle. One of the many reasons why "notability" has to get junked sometime sooner rather than later. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • We need something to prevent people from making articles on random things based on government records of existence, though. - Amark moo! 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The keep opinions were far stronger than the delete opinions. The first five opinions seem to be completely invalid- two were based on some fantasy policy that songs are only notable if there is a corresponding article for the artist/album. One !vote ("boot it in da pants") gave no reason at all. Weirdoactor's comment suggests both deleting and merging (impossible action due to GFDL), and gives no reason for either action. Uioh's comment seems to suggest deleting solely because the article was too short- that's not a valid reason for deletion. A decent discussion actually begins at badlydrawnjeff's comments. There seems to be no consensus whether the subject's claim to notability is good enough, so the only conclusion to the Afd would have been "no consensus". --- RockMFR 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. It was shown why it was notable, and in response, the delete arguments were that it... fails a proposal which never managed consensus, that it doesn't fail anyway? - Amark moo! 21:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Again, very few people actually cited WP:NSONGS (and yes, it would have failed that). The discussion was based on whether simply charting on any chart is enough to be notable. There's no policy which says one way or the other. I really don't care if this is overturned, but that notability was somehow "established" simply isn't true. GassyGuy 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Then look at it from the other side - "non-notability" wasn't established. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Maybe "established" is the wrong term, but note that WP:NSONGS includes as a semi-criterion appearing in a major motion picture, which it did. There's no consensus for deletion either way. - Amark moo! 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus, and I don't see strength of arguments going much either way. GRBerry 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Not only was there no consensus for deletion, this track reached #2 on the Billboard R&B charts. Why was this deleted again? Some sort of explanation from the closing administrator would have been nice given that the arguments for inclusion overuled the others. RFerreira 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn agree with RockMFR, Keep votes were much stronger than deletes.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• The point that we don't have an article on the album is a valid one, and I must say I'm struggling to see how being a directory of minor hit singles has anything to do with the work of an encycloapedia. Guy ( Help!) 10:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. Wow, someone deleted a song that charted? Wiwaxia 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. There is an overwhelmingly strong precedent for keeping articles such as this one. Silensor 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per GRBerry. At the very least, the debate was "no consensus," therefore the article should have been kept. — Disavian ( ^talk/ _contribs) 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• undelete this please there is no consensus to erase it anyway yuckfoo 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hercules Cycle and Motor Company (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article deleted as alleged copyright violation, however content this cited was not duplicated from the external webpage - facts were taken from there, and other content based upon that site but rewritten 'in my own words' (as per WP copyright policy), and this was also combined with content from two other sources.

The admin who deleted the page, Centrx did not place a proper notice (such as {{ nothanks-sd}}) on my talk page to notify me - or even let me know which page it was that the problem was with, just left a non-specific accusatory message.

Rather than specifying any particular sections of the article with which Centrx had a problem he (or she) just deleted the entire article.

Article appears to have been speedily deleted - it doesn't appear to have been listed on the Copyright Problems page ( WP:CP) prior to deletion or had an RFD.

Note that the page the information was sourced from, http://www.madeinbirmingham.org/hercules.htm, has been altered recently. The older version is (at the time of writing) available in the Google cache.

Mauls 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

No, nearly every paragraph if not every paragraph is copied verbatim from that website, in both the new and older version of the website. You should also review your other contributions to make sure they are not copied as well. You cannot undelete a copyright infringement. (Note: see also OTRS complaint). — Centrx→ talk • 15:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse If you are aware of the {{ nothanks-sd}} then you are aware that copyvio articles can be deleted speedily without going through the WP:CP page. The fact that Centrx left you a less than detailed message is irrelevant. Fan-1967 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse copyvios will not be undeleted. Period. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - you don't need it undeleted, it was a copyvio so you still have the original source in the Google cache or you can use the wayback machine. While you are thinking about it you could make a redirect to Raleigh Bicycle Company and make a small section there. The topic itself undoubtedly has merit. Guy ( Help!) 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, my recollection of the work I did is obviously at odds with the above - and I'm at the disadvantage that I can't see the article anymore to compare. Given that, I've recreated the article from the notes I used last time. I still remain critical of Centrx's approach though - not helpful and not constructive. Mauls 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Mishlove (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

The admin Jaranda abruptly closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Mishlove, and deleted the article, citing WP:IAR as his(?) primary justification. The majority of those who voted in the brief RFD period before Jaranda closed it voted to "keep" the article. The article was in the midst of active discussion and revision by good faith editors (admittedly, it had some problems with unsourced material). However, it is clear that Mishlove is a well-established figure in the world of parapsychology. A large number of verifiable books and articles by Mishlove were documented, he is the host of a national television program, there is evidence that he holds a unique PhD in Parapsychology from UC Berkeley and his been the subject of magazine articles, there are 36,000 "google" hits for the guy. I request that the article be restored. BTfromLA 08:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, no reliable sources in the article nor presented by AfD, thus keep proponents failed to show notability. Slap Jaranda with a trout for citing WP:IAR, because he didn't ignore any rules. I don't know what you mean by "abruptly closed", because the AfD ran for the full period. Little reason to overturn the AfD given - "Evidence... that he has been the subject of magazine articles"? Cite them, then. -- Sam Blanning ^(talk) 10:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Response Re: the "abrupt" closure--in the few occasions that I've gotten involved in AfD discussions, they went on for a couple of weeks if there was a continuing discussion without clear consensus. If the policy has changed, and the idea now is that the door slams shut at the stroke of five days no matter what, then that's my error--I was not aware of that change in procedure. But I don't really see what the point of the AfD is if the admin is going to come along and unilaterally decide the fate of the article. Clearly, the only possible interpretations of the consensus of that vote were "keep" or "undecided." If admins are going to disregard the "keep" votes, as Jaranda did, why invite non-admins into the process at all? Re: reliable sources about Mishlove: I don't have time to ferret out much detail (this was not my article--I don't have a particular interest in the guy), but a cursory internet search reveals a review of his book "The PK man" by Stephen E. Braude in The Journal of Parapsychology, June, 2001; a June, 1998 review in the same journal by Larry Dossey which lists Mishlove among the "most prominent persons in parapsychology"; He appears as a subject on the "Coast to Coast AM" website, and apparently has been the focus of at least one episode of that radio program (one of the more widely syndicated radio shows in the US and Canada); the deleted article stated that Psychology Today ran a piece on him and his unique degree in October, 1980 (I don't have the ability to confirm that from my home computer); and despite one user's arguments to the contrary, I'm not convinced that Mishlove's claim to be the only person ever to recieve a PhD in parapsychology from an accredited US university should be rejected. A copy of the document, the list of his dissertation committee members, and a description of the program which permitted him to create this unique degree program are online. The guy has authored or co-authored several easily verifiable books, some published by major presses, including Ballantine, while addressing a "fringe" specialty. There aren't many professional, academically trained parapsychologists in the world, even fewer with TV interview shows. I think he surpasses the notability level of many of the subjects awarded an entry in Wikipedia. But my main concern is with the administrative swooping down and undermining the process of discussion and revision. BTfromLA 11:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• My fault for the WP:IAR, i was closing them at 2 AM, but the article had no reliable sources and the keep voters didn't try to add them to the article so Endorse Deletion for now as closer, instead I saw the votes were like a I heard of him so keep votes, again the article can be recreated with reliable sources. Also I closed the afd within the time allowed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Assertions that there are sources are unconvincing. You must provide the sources. - Amark moo! 21:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I think the same results would occur again but have no objection to re-discussion. I voted delete in good part on the basis that--more than just no RS--, there was evidence of error at the least as i found objective evidence from the standard list of phd degrees that there were about 40 more of them in his field, which is not a trivial mistake by a guy claiming to be the only one. He claims to have run a major interview series, but strangely enough nobody else has ever mentioned it. If that sort of evidence doesn't count, then we have the evidence on the other side that one of the editors has frequently seen his name on a signboard in front of his research institute/university. DGG 03:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Beating a dead horse: DGG, I appreciate your willingness to re-open the discussion, and am frankly baffled by the attitude of the group of admins who've weighed in here. Apropos your argument, did you look at that copy of Mishlove's PhD? He is clearly claiming a PhD for research IN Parapsychology, not about it or mentioning it. So, either he indeed has this unique credential, or he has been perpetrating an outright fraud for years--it's not a matter of exaggeration or prevarication, the online degree states on its face that it is in Parapsychology, and he puts it that way in his bio (and a list of his dissertation committee is supplied below the scan of the certificate, along with a description of the interdisiplinary PhD program that permitted him to structure such a degree). BTfromLA 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Based on the abstracts, there were clearly other programs that permitted people to arrange the structure of the committee and to fit dissertations in this field. There is no use of the word which does not establish him as either careless or lying. Now, neither of these are reasons to keep anyone out of WP, but it does cast some doubt about other matters relying to any extent on his word , and the details will have to be rexamined for RS. DGG 02:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion without prejudice to recreate if reliable sources can be found (and I suspect they can). Actually, I'd like to see the history to be sure, but it sounds like the article was fairly dubious, and the deletion was (at least barely) within policy. But I've definitely heard of the guy, so I'm pretty sure that there are sources out there, somewhere, and I suspect he's probably notable enough to meet WP:BIO. But even so, if I assume good faith on all sides, I have to assume that a re-creation from scratch (from sources) would be better than an undeletion. Xtifr _tälk 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Nihilist anarchism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

This deletion review is about the term " nihilist anarchism" which is claimed to be a "neologism" by user Tothebarricades. I dispute this with sourcing and notes. Others claim this is in "essay" form, which is incorrect. It is an expression of the notes that I placed during the deletion. I understand that cleanup was necessary for the article, but I also feel that attempts to achieve cleanup were not taken seriously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nihilist anarchism and no attempt was made to engage my points while I was attempting a clean up, a summary of this can be found at Talk: Nihilist anarchism and is detailed below:

• According to the rules on deletion, users are to Be bold in updating pages

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold; it's all right. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.

Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be. Bring out all information that you can."

This is also asked of administrators and was not attempted. The "discussion" on deletion failed to bring up any direct points that were questionable. Original content was claimed to be the problem, but nothing was cited, so the entry could not be fixed to avoid deletion. No suggestions were made. Based on the rules for consensus, all are to agree, though administration determines "consensus", this did not occur. If specific points were brought up they could've been answered, like most entries, cleanup would've been possible. Information was verified with sources, original content was dismissed by notes and there was a neutral point of view that did not present bias, touching all the key points for deletion, removing a basis for it. Rough consensus was also not achieved. Dominance in discussion was not weighed properly, attempts to clean up were made during the deletion process and no conversation challenged my attempts to clean-up. According to the rules of Rough consensus Administrators are to determine dominance. However that dominance has some guidelines which were ignored ""dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course)." A general sense of agreement cannot be determined when there was no attempt to engage any of my points. "*Delete" over and over is "persistance" without substance. I offered a quality response to these calls, but there wasn't even an attempt to dismiss my points. I am logging administrative abuse because of this.Brokendoor 00:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting an undeletion and I am willing to be bold in cleaning up this entry. I can note the "neologism", I can change the name to "nihilist anarchy", I can shorten the entry by linking to the appropriate histories of the Russian Nihilist movement, the Narodnik and the International Workingmen's Association, adding the appropriate history to the congresses from the "influences in anarchy" section of nihilist anarchism. I can also link to Friedrich Nietzsche, Last Man, Übermensch, The will to power and use notes from an external "nihilist anarchy" site resource to express this. I can expand from the previous entry into the influences from Situationist, Post-left anarchy and Green anarchism. I can write up a critique of civilization using a variety of sources connected with the previous mentioned entries, which also plays a part in developing this tendency. Also, I can count in the influences from Postmodernism and other theories that fall around Existentialism and Nihilism. However here I would detail differences between the theories as well as similiarities.

Basically, this disserves review at the least, reinstatement if possible and I am willing to work with administrators with this because I am proposing an entry in a practicing form of anarchy that draws influences from a variety of sources, which have been implied as similiar, but have only formented as both an influence (like most anarchist theories in the U.S.) and a specific tendency several years ago. The announcement that this tendency was real and defined occurred in "Nihilism, Anarchy, and the 21st Century" by Aragorn! an editor of Anarchy magazine and contributor to Green Anarchy magazine. John Zerzan and other editors of "Green Anarchy" also play a part in its developing growth and some (not John Zerzan) have identified as nihilists in this magazine and other journals. There have also been several articles written that are posted online that pretain directly to nihilist anarchy that aren't found at pistolsdrawn.org, such as High Priest Wombat's "Nihilism and Women" and Felonious Skunk's Contributing to Momentum Against Civilization. This is an attempt to expose this development.

Journals like Green Anarchy and Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed discuss this tendency at length and they are the first and second largest anarchist magazine distributed in the United States. I also feel that WikiProject Deletion or Deletionism caused a rush on the process which was unnecessary. This intentional project can be hostile to developing entries and it make me uncomfortable as a learning wiki-editor and I'll go on record saying that. Please consider my points and my attempt to create this entry. I would like to engage administration so that this can be made possible, either through reinstating the entry or giving details on some of the points I made above. Brokendoor 03:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The article would have needed a complete rewrite to be even decent, so ignoring questions of notability, it should have been deleted. The AfD was valid, anyway, and I don't see anything which was not present there. - Amark moo! 03:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Just wanted to point out "for the record", that of the 10 users recommending delete (including the nominator), only 2 (not including the nominator) are members of WikiProject Deletion. One of them made a very brief comment "OR, violates NPOV", and the other made a lightly sarcastic but reasonable comment: ""Presently, nihilist anarchy is more a collection of scattered individuals than a tendency". Well, thanks for telling us. We can't very well have articles about scattered individuals, can we? I might as well start one about my family, at least we aren't scattered. Purest original research.". I don't see how these comments "caused a rush on the process" or caused a hostile or uncomfortable environment, especially as they basically echoing what the other 8 delete commentators were saying Bwithh 03:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment To User Amark: Could you give reason for its rewrite? I challenged "original content" without any engagement on if my "notes" on a re-write were acceptable and why or why not they were. I did not recieve any imput, if it can't be reinstated, I'd like to know how I can improve this entry without it being nominated for deletion. I am a writer and I'm willing to source relevant information, if this was the reason. If I needed more direct quotations on its development, I can do that. Though I'm pretty certain I can't get imput on how I can necessarily improve this entry I'd like to know what I should of avoided with the previous entry so it won't be repeated and my attempts won't problem the wikipedia administration. To User Bwithh: I won't press on this subject, but I still don't agree with the direction the discussion went without touching on my points. The point of consensus isn't to "vote" but to discuss and discover the area of disagreement and find a way to overcome it, this was not attempted. This is implied in the "talk" section and the "discussion" section terms. It was a one-sided deletion. Cleanup should've been allowed a chance and direct points should've been made about where clean up was necessary. Brokendoor 03:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

My point was that it was unnecessary to drag WikiProject Deletion in this discussion, especially as its aims were grossly misrepresented. Bwithh 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I am noting your point and though I disagree with this project, this is not the place to challenge it, though I am noting a disagreement with this project. Brokendoor 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redeleter's comment I didn't close the AFD; I did delete as recreated content. Changes made by that point were minimal. I have no opinion on whether this can be recreated in acceptable form, but I strongly believe that that attempt should be made at a user sub-page, such as User:Brokendoor/Sandbox, and that the article should be written from scratch, not copied and pasted from another source. Starting by copying and pasting from another source is a copyright violation and would mean that all subsequent versions would need to be deleted. (This is true even if the other source is under a license like the GFDL, because the original authors need to be credited.) GRBerry 04:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I am the source I wrote the entry at "Open Wiki" which is open source and can be reprinted. I do not need permission, but should that become necessary, the editor is an associate of mine and I can do that. Still no attempts have been made to directly address the content and which sections are at fault. If all are at fault, I'd like an explanation. I've already made an extensive challenge to the points brought up without challenge, until this occurs, I cannot reach an understanding on this subject and with continue to reiterate my points. Brokendoor 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. Claims of this being a protologism are unfounded. Wiwaxia 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against a complete rewrite. Valid AFD, but I agree that a valid article could be written about this term. The article that was deleted was not it. And if you are the source, we have a problem with WP:OR and possibly a COI as well. Moreschi ^Deletion! 09:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion - First, it certainly is a protologism,and probably a created one. It was deleted for having a large amount of OR. Nihilistic anarchy is basically a belief in nothing. The article (which can still be scraped from various sites on the net) failed OR in multiple ways. It didn't have a single cited source, nor any suggestion of where it drew these "facts" it proclaimed from, nor did it explain WHY it tried to interconnect a huge number of completley disparate theories under one roof (and ignored the fact many directly contradict each other). It was an original thought, original research essay and belongs on anarchopedia. The discussion itself basically was a bunch of people saying "Gee, yeah, that's original research". They didn't provide a way to "fix" it because the entire article was made up. A search on nihilist anarchism after removing wikipeida gives us LESS THAN 200 Google hits. Finally, the proper time period was observed, and not a single counterargument based on POLICY was offered. Most of his "sources" offered at the AfD were from some minor website called pistols drawn (with a huge 145 ghits). If you want to recreate the article, find a reputable source that backs up what you are claiming exists, and do not try to connnect the dots between various sources. Blaming WP:SCISSORS for the article being deleted is blatant bad faith. If the project is watching an article a template will appear on that article's talk page. -- Elar a girl ^{Talk| Count} 10:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Disagreement The internet and pop culture isn't what writes political theory and philosophy, so the point on it being a protologism can be noted, but it is not what is suggested. It did have sourcing, it did have notes. I really don't know where you are getting this from. The notes cite why these ideas are combined, sourcing various articles to prove this point, none of which has been challenged. The sourcing was at the bottom and there was no attempt to be bold and add "citation needed" at any point in this process. I was attempting a cleanup and was disrupted by the rush to delete. The AfD comments explain this, why you didn't engage any of my points just shows that this consensus process is fast becoming as much of a farse as the AfD was. Most of the material for "Pistols Drawn" is distributed face-to-face, making it a phenomenon that isn't lived on the internet. Also Elaragirl, I've already made note that I do have bad faith in a bunch of bored administrators that practice zealous deletions when they have no idea what is actually being discussed and they fail to follow the first guideline, which is to attempt an edit or engage the talk section for an edit. If you want to make an argument out of it, then do it somewhere else. This is not the place for it. As far as policy, I challenged POLICY and none responded. Your responses are the closest to a real engagement, but as you can see, it is rather easy for me to deflect everything you say because the deletion was without merit. As I stated and I'll state again, editors and administrators are to "be bold" and use "rough consensus". A 5 day process without discussion is not a valid reason for deletion. This is just following the structure offered by consensus and time was the only thing adhered to (actual consensus was avoided for a majoritarian volume of response). I challenged original content, I've exposed sourcing. If this is "pop wiki" let me know, because website hits aren't a valid reason for dismissal in any editing circles I've ever encountered. There was no OC, this is a false statement. Brokendoor 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Submit I am giving in on this discussion with points noted apologia presented. I do feel I could do a rewrite and fully cite this new rewrite. Once I post it, I only ask for any challenge brought up be in the talk section and AfD be held off until a full discussion is engaged. Claims of OC will be dismissed with a more focused approach on how this term exists. Anarchists have been using it for years, I am an anarchist. Anarchists tended to not announce the term "nihilist" because of the connotations of nihilism and anarchism to the bombing and assassination campaigns of the late 19th century and early 20th, especially in the United States. Red scares and white terror will "disappear" a tendency only to see its resurgance decades later. The term anarchism and anarchy went through these very same problems, people mistaking these terms with their neologisms. We are a tendency of individuals in the anarchist movement and we are influenced by who we say we are, we have announced our existance and our tendency is one of the fastest growing radical tendencies in the United States. Attempts to dismiss as a neologism again are unfounded. With proper citation and more depth in explaining the connections, I hope to dismiss claims of original content. Thank you for your time with this review. I don't know if I am allowed to close a review, but I am. Brokendoor 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse valid AfD, plus few ghits, nothing on Gnews, only two articles on JSTOR (spanning half a century), nothing on Factiva. There appear to be no sources for this outside of the pistosldrawn website. Feel free to rewrite in your userspace any time, and bring it back here, but you will need multiple references from independent reliable sources, in this case that would probably be peer-reviewed political science journals. Feel free to ask for help and advice on individual sources, people like to help. Guy ( Help!) 10:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Someone deleted this as "unlikely typo". With 31,000 Google hits, the name "Shrubya" is not very "unlikely" to be typed in, and this is no typo! -- Wiwaxia 04:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Tangent Though I must thank you for your support, I don't feel that this tangent is relevant to this discussion and would like it if it were not explored on this page to speed this process. Brokendoor 06:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I put this on 2007 January 21 because this is a nomination for undeletion being made on 2007 January 21. Not everything nominated today is required to have to do with nihilist anarchism. Wiwaxia 07:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Appologies Your subject wasn't tagged for review and made me think it was a response to mine. Nevermind. Brokendoor 08:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion regardless of one's politics, I don't think that insulting redirects have a place in Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Insulting names for someone should not get redirect to their article. Insulting names can get their own article if they are notable enough insulting names, but never a redirect. - Amark moo! 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse reducing the number of ghits to 30,999. Is there anybody in the world in space who will type Shrubya without knowing perfectly well who they are looking for? I think not. Guy ( Help!) 10:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse unnecessary, attacking redirect. If there are reliable sources (not just forum and blog use) it can be mentioned in Criticism of George W. Bush or another appropriate page. Eluchil404 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Wait a minute. I just learned that Dumbya was made into a redirect to List of U.S. Presidential nicknames. If Dumbya redirects there, Shrubya should redirect there too. Wiwaxia 06:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • While that's possible, that is different, and thus doesn't need a DRV to overturn the deletion of the other redirect. -06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| AfD)

I don't see it meeting any speedy delete reasons; not WP:LIVING, {{ db-bio}}, or {{ db-attack}}. My !vote would be keep, but allow the subject to submit it to AfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Both deleting admins have been informed. I had asked User:Jaranda about the deletion before submitting this DRV, and he/she failed to reply, but replied to a complaint about an AfD closing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment; DRV on 1/19/2007 seems to indicate that it was copyvio/an attack page in its previous incarnation. -- nae' blis 08:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close as a re-run of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 19#Stirling Newberry from two days ago. -- Steel 12:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw. I still don't see it as an attack, but neither of the recent deleting admins gave copyvio as a reason in their deletes. Allow speedy deletion as copyvio. If someone wants to recreate the article with sourced information, could a note be placed in the SALT that I would be willing to review it? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• I gave my reason as WP:LIVING issue for a not really that notable person as the subject wanted it to be deleted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( remove current deletion| AfD)

This article was just created and got a deletion notice just five minutes after it was created [1]. This article didn't meet the Before nominating an AfD requirements and is completly User:Woohookitty over reacted [2]. This article is just going to be deleted for not being given a chance to be looked over by other users to clean it up. I had hoped this article would work out after I created this article but User:Woohookitty had to change its path without giving this article a chance. -- Gndawydiak 08:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• It doesn't appear the AFD has run its course yet. Suggest waiting for an article to actually be deleted, before requesting it to be undeleted. -- Haemo 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply