Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 Deletion review archives: 2008 August August 14 >

13 August 2008

  • Sonic shower – There's no real consensus here, though it's clear that one editor's insistent view that the close was "nonsensical" is not shared by the community (such divisive arguments are never helpful on this page). There is sufficient will to userfy and allow a new, article, using reliable non-fiction sources, that focuses on speculation about the possibility of a real sonic shower rather than Star Trek--there is consensus that the Star Trek use (or similar) in and of itself is not notable. I'm somewhat arbitrarily going to put it in Lifebaka's userspace, since he's the one actually tracking down sources here, but of course anyone can work on it there or move it somewhere else if preferred. Note that only an article with a substantially different focus will not be subject to WP:CSD#G4. – Chick Bowen 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sonic shower ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

AfDs may not be a vote, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) when seven editors in good standing argue to keep and another argues to merge, we do not have a consensus to delete, especially when the deletes are unsubstantiated WP:JNN in nature. Seven editors in good standing argued to keep and one argued to merge. The closer claims that the only sources are wikis, but a Google book search (see [1]) shows that this claim is simply not true. Thus saying that verifiability outweighs consensus is inaccurate, because the article can be verified by multiple published books and because it is exists in multiple published books, it is thus notable. Please note that a different editor had raised concerns with the closing admin prior to this DRV: User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FSonic shower .282nd_nomination.29.Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Actually, several of the deletes point out that the sources in the article were two other wikis, which we all know are not reliable, and thus the article was unverifiable. Sandstein noted this in his close, which seems reasonable. 'Keep deleted'. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The hits included verifiable information in published books, which is why the close was unreasonable and the article should be undeleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This search is better. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
A note to the folks who have turned up all of the sources here: next time, do it during the AFD, not in DRV. Neutral, as the sources presented seem rather in-world or minimal in reference. Carry on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The keep arguments were weak and did not successfully refute any delete arguments. Without some reliable, non-fiction sources to establish notability of the subject, there's no good reason to overturn. If exact examples can be provided, I will reconsider; I did not see any in the Google books search. lifebaka ++ 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • By contrast, the delete arguments were weak and the keep arguments effectively refuted them by providing reliable sources to establish notability, which is why the discussion must be overturned. Such sources as this, an interview, provides out of universe commentary. This ones also seems to be a real world usage of the term. Thus, at worst we can make some kind of disambugation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hem. I'm not convinced that the Star Trek item has merit for its own article from the first. Is the concept used in any other shows?
The second link is unrelated to the previous article, and by itself isn't enough to merit an article. But I'll bet that idea has been discussed elsewhere, likely under a different name. I'm not satisfied enough with either to switch my opinion on this one, but I'd like to note that Sandstein's close doesn't preclude an article about a different topic. I'm heading through the books hits farther to check if there are more. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is used in other media. Here are three books. So I'm currently unsure what to make of it, and am switching to neutral. lifebaka ++ 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for keeping an open-mind and engaging in productive discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Eh, I hadn't finished looking yet. These three books are non fiction and contain "sonic shower" in what seems like a related context. Relevant quotes are, in order,
  1. "... rather than the traditional view screen on the bridge, and details of the Captain's quarters which includes a sonic shower and a 360-degree mirror). ..."
  2. "... take a sonic-shower, undergo a light therapy session, see a play, be transformed into an opera diva, ride a pink mini-cycle, slide into a latex skin, ..."
  3. "One can wash in a "sonic" shower, c be scrubbed in a conventional tub by the ver faithful family robot or be dressed by a ..." (typos?)
Can't tell if any of them are useful, but it's what I found. I'll see if I can get my hands on any of them as quick as I can. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(conflicted) That is certainly helpful. :) The Google Books link above led me to another fiction ref, too. [2] ("...the sonic shower didn't use water. It used pulses of inaudible sound and a stream of heated air to gently remove dead skin cells, dirt, and excess oil.") This clearly verifies some materials I see in the deleted version. The WP:V argument is glaringly false. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn unreasonable close, not taking into account the information presented. DGG ( talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, the information presented did not refute the valid arguments to delete. A search on Google Books turning up a lot of hits may indicate that reliable sources are likely, but does not prove their existence. Despite the insistence of editors in the debate that sources were out there, none were either presented for argument or added to the article. The likely existence of sources does not satisfy inclusion criteria and these arguments were rightly afforded less weight. Sher eth 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The Google books results refuted the invalid "reasons" to delete an article that was improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist. Sources were presented in the discussion and above. The claims that sources don't exist is dishonest and inaccurate based on this reality. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist -- that AfD was almost a year ago, and those claims of sources' existence never extended to actual inclusion in the article. Given that window to improve the article, which editors failed to do, Judgesurreal was right to nominate it. EEMIV 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn No consensus for "delete" in that discussion. The admin's comment regarding WP:V looks like a delete vote rationale, not a closing statement. There is no verifiability issue. Most fictional topics can easily be verified by the fiction works themselves, and some sources were cited above. Saying that this is unverifiable is just wrong. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Additional source: The first result in Daniel H. Wilson, " 10 Genius Inventions We're Still Waiting For: PM's resident roboticist imagines new tech that will transform our lives. Now all we need is someone to invent it," Popular Mechanics (May 2008) is none other than "Sonic Showers". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I just read the first AfD. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are some interesting real-world related refs cited in that discussion. Could be helpful as additional source, too. :) -- PeaceNT ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn – Here are some other non-trivial mentions in real-world sources:
    • Graham, Jefferson. "'Voyager': Change in the stars", USA Today, 1998-07-24, p. E9; quote: "Outer-space cleansing: It's been much discussed, but this season, viewers will get their first peek at Voyager members taking a sonic shower. 'It's real loud,' Braga says. "A bath in sound waves.'"
    • Kirsch, Jonathan. "From Flawed World to a Flawed Utopia", Los Angeles Times, 1988-06-15, p. 8; quote: "Walden Three itself is an off-the-shelf technological conceit that offers no real surprises at all—a domed Shangri-La, providing its placid residents with the pleasures and conveniences of sonic showers, moving sidewalks, three-dimensional video walls."
    • Spelling, Ian. "The plot hit close to home for Kirk on Planet Deneva", Denver Post, 1994-09-09;quote: "Those aboard the Enterprise used a personal-hygiene device called a sonic shower to keep themselves clean." Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per the references provided in this DRV discussion, which indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy - the question is not whether now, after the fact, digging around turns up a sentence here and a sentence there that mentions "sonic shower". The question is, was the AFD decided correctly based on the article as it stood at the time the AFD was closed? As the closing admin noted, consensus does not and cannot override core policy, and WP:V is a core policy. Clearly, if the article was sourced only by two other wikis, it failed WP:V and the closing admin correctly deleted it. Rather than dashing off yet again to try for yet another AFD round two, is there some reason why Le Grand could not have requested the article be userfied, written it with appropriate sourcing and then moved it to articlespace? This constant rush to DRV every time Le Grand disagrees with a deletion is a waste of the community's time and resources and borders on an abuse of process. If the AFD is overturned, there is no guarantee that anyone so earnestly asserting that there are reliable sources for the topic will spend another second working on it. How many times at AFD have we seen articles kept on the "wait and see" premise, only to have them languish untouched for months or years as this one did and return to AFD? Keep the article deleted and let's see if Le Grand or one of the other editors who wants it restored will volunteer to userfy it and write it to actual Wikipedia standards. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • An actual waste of the communities time is your constant renomination of articles for deletion that were unambiguously kept. Unless you concede that trying repeatedly to get something deleted that is kept sometimes multiple times is somehow not "AFD round two" then you are in no position to say anything about anyone who takes obviously bad closures to DRV. Just because the AfD ended is no reason why serious encylopedists would just stop with any effort to find sources or to augment our coverage of notable and verifiable topics. AfDs that close as delete are not the end all of us ever covering that particular topic. If new reliable sources turn up, we undelete and add them to the article. The closing admin ignored the sources presented in the discussion and apparently did not do a simple search as those who commented here did that would have turned up the sources, i.e. to verify that the inaccurate claims for deletion were in fact false as eidtors have shown above. The close was wrong, sources exist, and therefore I did not ask for userfication as there is no legitimate reason why editors cannot work on this notable and encyclopedic topic in mainspace. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Whatever you say sweetie. Have some milk and cookies and try to calm down. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • There is a difference between "AfD round 2" happening one year after the first AfD, and this rehash of keep/delete rationales just a few days after the AfD. All these sources that have been dug up here could have been dug up during the AfD -- but should have been dug up when people created the freakin' article. I'd support userfying this text in Le Grand or someone else's space. But I oppose restoration to article space. There was no lapse in the closing admin's recognition that the article itself, regardless of what was alluded/linked to in the AfD, had no reliable sources. Clarely, Le Grand et al. and the closing admin. et al. disagree with where sources need to be -- I side with the folks saying they need to be in the article itself. But, this is a discussion for the village pump or on users' talk pages. Anyway. I suppose it's unfortunate that keep-!voting editors' failure to integrate the sources they found with the article led to its deletion -- and if someone wants to take it under their wing to work on in user space and later move to article space when it's actually, ya know, an article with sources, that's great. But considering how little work the article received in the ~year since the first AfD, along with the backlog of Le Grand's userfied deleted articles, I have little faith that an article restored to article space will receive sufficient attention to actually look at and review the sources. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • When new sources are found, even if minutes after the AfD, then we take these into account and reconisder. We know from User:EEMIV/Deletions that you have something against Star Wars and Star Trek articles and will make whatever argument you can to get and keep them deleted. Yes, these sources should have been used and there's no reason why those arguing to delete couldn't have found and used them to do so. Anyone who is actually here to build the encyclopedia is more interested in helping to do that then just trying to get certain articles deleted. The source searches presented in the AfD contained sufficient enough results that any neutral or reasonable close would have been keep or no consensus. Those arguing to keep would have better time spent incorporating the sources into the article if they didn't have to keep combating closed minded deletes that never acknowledge legitimate sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • We know from User:EEMIV/Deletions that you have something against Star Wars and Star Trek articles - Wow, that's quite a bit of dickish original research. Would you like me to point you toward Star Wars, Star Trek, and other sci-fi articles I've contributed toward to bring them up to featured article and good article status? Hell, I put the majority of Category:Star Wars vehicles (with a lot of help from Deckiller and Saberwyn) through a tremendous overhaul -- and not AfD, because I have a grasp of notability and sourcing. Or more recently, a quick and rational note from User:JIP led to a move and small edits to I.K.S. Gorkon rather than a possible prod deletion. And just a few minutes ago, offering to help a newbie editor fire up some other Trek-related stuff. And that's because these editors and I understand WP:GNG, we don't cherry-pick what parts of policies and guidelines we cite and ignore, we know that policies trump a single editor's minority opinion, we don't invent inclusion standards to fit our personal preference, and we don't -- as you've just done -- throw some, "Oh, you just don't like it" pixie dust into the air to cast aspersions on people whom we disagree with. You're being either hopelessly myopic or deliberately obtuse to look at my list of deletions and cull from that only that I don't like Star Trek or Star Wars articles -- for one, how about all the fair-use and copyright violations I also seek to delete? But more importantly, if you're honestly trying to size up my priorities and biases, really wouldn't an honest editor look at the entirety of my contributions -- a wealth of which work to improve Star Trek and Star Wars articles? I link form my user page a small list at User:EEMIV/Contributions, and deletions are a subset of it. And I'm sure this is at least the second time I've pointed this out to you -- just as I and countless other editors have tried to steer you toward a better understanding of what makes for notability and what makes for reliable sources. If you really think I have some vendetta against these franchises, how about we both request editor reviews or comments-on-users or whatever they're called for each of us and see what comes up? And, Jesus Christ, Pumpkin, of all the times to be a dick, this is one case where I'm actually okay with this content getting shifted to your user space and not opposing stamping it out. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
            • If you objectively step back and look at the tone and text of your post (such as doing "original research" on my userspace...) that I replied to above, then you'll understand why I replied as I did. I would not say that everything you have done is somehow unconstructive and if I challenge you, it is because I know in some instances you can be better than that, but I do find a good deal of these deletions to be unhelpful and closed minded to at least possible merges and redirects without deletion. By the way, have you seen this? And why is Michael Stipe Jesus Christ? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
              Might suggest that you take this discussion up on your talk pages, as it's not really relevant to this DRV. Stifle ( talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse AfD isn't a vote. It is odd that Sandstein would decide to delete and then make it known that he deleted it on WP:V reasons, but it could have just as easily been deleted under WP:N. If we need to overturn this deletion and then re-delete it on the grounds that the AfD should have resulted in a "deleted without explanation" or "deleted because the subject isn't notable", that's fine. As for the WP:V, the decision was correct with regard to the article both at the START and END of the AfD. Given how much frothing there was in the deletion discussion over how obviously notable the subject was, how did 5 days elapse with only memory alpha links on this article? As for the 'sources' suggested in the AfD, almost all of those referred to sonic cleaning devices (referred to by a number of different names: "sonic sink, ultrasonic sink, ultrasonic shower") which did not resemble the article subject in form nor function. An ultrasonic sink in the real world bears no resemblance to the sonic showers of science fiction. Likewise, independent sources weren't found that referred to the subject of the article as it related to science fiction. And again, google searches don't count. Protonk ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but allow userification and recreation See! How hard was that. There are like 6 sources listed above. Was that too hard to do during the AfD? If half of the sources listed above were linked in the AfD (not waved at with google searches) or, heaven forbid, added to the article, we wouldn't be here. Endorse, as the close was valid, but a new article can be created from the userified history of the old one. Sheesh. Protonk ( talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Since when has it been the task of AFD to improve poor articles? The idea of AFD is to get rid of articles that can't be improved. How hard is it to not delete notable topics so that they can be improved without all this needless bureaucracy? - Halo ( talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
IT isn't. But it hardly makes any sense to wait until after the 5 days to bring up some sources when the 5 day timeline is pretty well set. For that matter, why wait a year between the first AfD and the recent one? Why did this article go for years without sources? I'm glad that sources are here now but that doesn't change the decision at the moment of decision. Again, the EASIEST way to avoid this "bureaucracy" is to just cite the sources in the article when the information is added. Failing that, just cite the sources in the article when the material is questioned. IF that doesn't work, just cite the sources when the article gets nominated for deletion. EVEN IF that is too hard, just specifically list sources in the AfD that establish notability (the linked sources in the AfD didn't, some didn't even apply to Sci-fi topics). That's it. How is that hard? The deletion process isn't going away. WP:N isn't going away. Given those two elements of policy, the easiest way to avoid this mess of AfD/DRV/etc is to just cite the sources. IF you don't do that, what are the rest of us supposed to think? Protonk ( talk) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
If you don't want to improve the article yourself, then yes, you have to wait. Simply because you cannot force other editors into improving that article. The point of having an AfD is to delete articles that stand no chance of being improved. Editors arguing for "keep" only have to point out some sources, not add them to the article. There are sources; granted they were found a bit late, but my point stands: there is no reason to keep the page deleted now. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse bu allow userification and recreation - That does sound like a good idea, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT REAL SONIC SHOWERS, NOT STAR TREK ONES (not shouting, just for emphasis). That way, we might have a real article about a real topic and not just plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I quote from the closer's AfD statement... "It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N." So why wasn't that done instead of this DRV? The closer's rationale seems entirely justified and well-explained to me. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Sources were sufficiently presented in the AfD and the arguments for keeping were strong enough that it should not have been closed as delete. No consensus, perhaps, but there was no consensus to delete. As sources have been presented in this discussion, per the quote above, the article should be recreated and the sources added. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 22:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No, because the point of this process is to determine if the AFD was closed in a way inappropriate with the rules of AFD, and it wasn't. If you have 100 keep votes that talk about "references" that have no verifiable content, and one person says that wikipedia policies are that you need verifiable content through reliable sources, and the closer says "delete", that is completely appropriate. It is not a vote, and it is not a vote count, it is a discussion about whether the article conforms to wikipedia policy. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
That's why it was closed inappropriately. Sources were presented in the two AfD discussions and thus any claims that it was not verifiable was simply not true even with what was there as looking at the two AfD discussions (and not just at the article) revealed. Thus, the arguments too delete were fallacious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion for now, but someone may want to take the sources dug up here, actually write a sourced article about the concept, and then bring that to DRV. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That would be easier to do if the unjustifiable deleted article is restored. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • No problem, I am more than happy to userfy it for you Le Roi, so that a better article can result. :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I note that the instructions for this page expressly provide that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Thus, the argument that "since the sources to establish the notability of this concept weren't presented at the AFD, the article was correctly deleted, and we sure as heck can't restore the article even if adequate sources are available now" is completely without merit. Furthermore, even if this request weren't procedurally compatible with deletion review (which it is), I also claim that as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we should be permitted to restore the article on the basis of the sources described here, rather than concluding that because the sources weren't introduced in the AFD discussion, the users supporting the restoration of the article are in procedural default with respect to those sources, and are not entitled to any consideration of the sources at DRV. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, we can hardly expect sources to always be produced within the five or six day deadline of an AFD discussion. John254 00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That's not how wikipedia works. Almost all articles start in poor condition, then through a multitude of minor edits they are transformed into something good. It is not proper to require that editors bring in excellent, detailed, sourced drafts of an article before they may be included in mainspace. I also recommend that we overturn the deletion. The closing admin should have written his deletion rationale in the debate below, and left the job of closing the AfD to someone else. AfD hero ( talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Incorrect. According to the closing statement, this article was deleted because it can't be verified. There are sources. It doesn't matter whether they were cited in the article or not; they are still sources. To endorse such deletion statement as "sources don't exist" is I think lying. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Does WP:V now trump WP:CCC while I haven't been looking? Wikipedia default controversial deletes to "keep", not "rewrite the article in userspace" - especially since there are sources - and the closer also didn't sufficiently prove their opinion that the article couldn't be improved to meet Wikipedia's requirements. - Halo ( talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • IMHO, yes, requiring that articles be verifiable does trump the idea that consensus can change. It is not the job of the closing admin to "prove their opinion." It is the job of the closing admin to interpret the discussion in light of relevant policies and guidelines and explain the close. This the closing admin did, and there is no technical fault in the AFD that necessitates overturning. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The fault is that verifiable sources were also presented in the two AfDs, i.e. the whole verifiability matter was addressed in the actual discussions and ignored due to the status of the article itself, which if those arguing to keep didn't have to kill time going back and forth with those arguing to delete who were not willing to help improve the article then perhaps those arguing to keep would indeed have had more opportunity to instead focusing on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is not the closing admin's job to wade through a ton of Google hits in the hopes that one or more of them might turn out to be a reliable source. It is the responsibility of those wanting to keep the article to demonstrate that there are reliable sources, and posting a link to a Google search result does not demonstrate that any of the results are reliable sources. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Those wanting to keep has sufficiently presented reliable sources and there's no reason for an admin not to do a quick double check for sources himself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There's a great reason for closing admins not to do a "quick double-check" of the supposed sources presented in the form of a link to every book on Google Books that happens to contain both the word "sonic" and the word "shower" and that is that admins are volunteers with limited time to assess hundreds of AFDs every day. Expecting closing admins not only to read the arguments but evaluate the supposed sources is far too much of a demand on the admins' time. Honestly, rather than just running a Google search, is there some reason why you couldn't have followed up on it in the course of the AFD? Must you present these vague "references" and then, when you don't get your way, run off to DRV? For all of the time and effort you've spent responding to pretty much every single comment here trying to get an unsourced article restored, you could have had a halfway decent article completed in place. Is this constant arguing really the best use of your time on Wikipedia? Otto4711 ( talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The most important question here is whether Wikipedia's administrative processes exist to serve editors, or editors are here to serve Wikipedia's administration. If the former is true, then the deletion should be overturned, since the sources presented at this deletion review clearly indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. If the latter holds, then the only question to be examined here is whether the deletion was correct at the time it was effectuated -- however, it should be noted that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that few editors will be willing to contribute under such conditions. John254 13:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I endorse the deletion as being in course as the article stood for almost four years with no reliable sourcing present; whether that's because it wasn't available, or because the references were only tangential, I can't say. That being said, if the sources provided herein this DRV (and the AfD) meet muster, please provide the previous content to any editor willing to vet said sources and rebuild a notable, sourced, real-world-based article.

    The closer deleted an article that—as it stood—failed a myriad of policies and guidelines. Was this wrong? No. Can the article be recreated (or restored) to make par? Sure. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

    So, basically, even if we now clearly have sources to establish the notability of this device, the article must remain deleted to punish editors for not introducing the sources earlier? Wikipedia's deletion process exists to remove articles which cannot be brought into compliance with our policies, not to force cleanup, as described in our deletion policy -- deletions for the latter purpose are grossly insulting, and discourage contributors. Note that, per the GFDL, the page history of the article must remain intact to attribute the work of the original authors if we are to use any of the content of the previous article in writing a new version -- thus, the endorsement of this deletion would require any new article to be rewritten from scratch. The claim that "the previous content" could actually be used in writing a new article, without restoring the page history on-wiki, is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. John254 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This is the second time in two days someone has played the punishment card and I have to say I'm getting pretty damn sick of it. Having an article deleted is not a punishment. Admins are not to the best of my knowledge a secret society plotting the downfall of the project through vindictive deletion. I believe that your GDFL concerns are unfounded, because as I understand the process userfying the article involves undeleting it, including the page history, and moving it to a subpage of an editor's user page, i.e. User:Otto4711/Sonic shower. When the article is re-written to Wikipedia standards, it is moved to the appropriate articlespace, Sonic shower, with page history intact. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • While "having an article deleted" shouldn't be "a punishment", is is clear that some editors endorsing this deletion intend to use it as such:

    See! How hard was that. There are like 6 sources listed above. Was that too hard to do during the AfD? If half of the sources listed above were linked in the AfD (not waved at with google searches) or, heaven forbid, added to the article, we wouldn't be here. [3]

    Since the sole justification for the deletion was a lack of sources in the article itself (failure to adequately use those sources would be an editorial problem not remediable via deletion), it is theoretically true that we could simply add the sources presented here to a userfied version of the article, then move it back to the main namespace, in minutes. The resulting article wouldn't be subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G4, since "the reasons for which the material was deleted" would be addressed by the provision of sources to establish notability. Likewise, since the sources establishing the device's notability would be present in the article, the article shouldn't be deleted if re-nominated at AFD, since any other problems, such as "in-universe" style, lack of inline citations, etc. would be reasons to edit the article, not to delete it. It is virtually inconceivable that any of the editors endorsing this deletion support such a pointless exercise. Rather, it is highly probable that editors supporting userfication believe that the article must be substantially rewritten before it would be permissible in the main namespace, and are prepared to misapply CSD G4 to force this result, perhaps even to the extent of requiring that the content be brought back to deletion review before it would be allowable in the article space. This would constitute the use of the deletion process to force cleanup, a result which our deletion policy expressly forbids. John254 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh come on. I wrote that quote. I don't see deletion as a punitive process. I see it as a practical process. It can't be indefinited because then it wouldn't result in outcomes (given the 100+ nominations per day). It can't rest on the vague promise that sourcing exists because anyone can promise. When the rubber hits the road, it has to be a process we can use to churn through 100 articles a day and see a minimum of appeals (meaning that people are basically happy with the outcome). As a result of the goals, the process has intended and unintended results. I don't think AfD should be punitive at all (in goal or outcome). Protonk ( talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't believe the comment you quoted demonstrates that the editor in question is out to punish anyone for anything. Nor do I see anyone lined up to pounce on a properly rewritten and sourced article and G4 it. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. There is not a significant verifiability issue and with due respect to Sandstein the sources did exist and it was then down to the debaters to determine whether they were sufficient. Stifle ( talk) 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn (no consensus). Probaably a merge & redirect is suitable for this one. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. That delete was the consensus from this this AfD seems to be pretty borderline. As the primary justification in the closing statement was a lack of reliable sources, and several reliable sources have been referenced in both the first AfD and particularly this DRV, then the basis for deleting doesn't seem to hold water. Possibly this should be renamed sonic shower (Star Trek) - but that's another issue. Nfitz ( talk) 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist if really needed. Closer's rational for delete was poor (WP:V as a problem here? That isn't reasonable and wasn't a part of the discussion that I can see). Further, sources now exist and seem to me to meet WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 07:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The "sources" which supposedly justify overturning a sensible and well-considered closure consist of mentions in assorted skiffy books and TV shows and passing mentions of these mentions. Those aren't much use for writing an article, not unless Sonic showers in popular culture is the aim. The Star Trek Encyclopedia seems to contain no more than the startling revelation that a sonic shower is a shower that's sonic. Well, there's a shocker. What's usable is trivial, what isn't trivial isn't usable. There is no "here" here, no article to be written. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The close was nonsensical and ill-considered given the large number of reliable sources and non-trivial coverage available. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Feel free to point me to these sources which address the subject in a non-trivial fashion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Stan burdman – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Consensus below is that notability was asserted and further discussion may be profitable. – Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stan burdman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I noticed that Stan Burdman, a famous radio dj, game reviewer, and comic, did not have a wiki page. I just thought this was strange so I made him one, using all the information on him I know and giving proper links to his radio show and all the other things he has done. The page was deleted, apparantly because you can't make wikipedia pages on people. This is really strange because I see a lot of wikipedia pages on various public figures and entertainers like Stan. I would like the Stan Burdman wiki page I made to be undeleted if that is at all possible. Thank you for your time Braddj1977 ( talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW only. The speedy deletion was technically improper because the article asserted notability ("He has written for, and hosted, several online podcasts and radio shows. Most notable of these is his entertainment talk show ..."). However, a Google search indicates that this person is not close to having the sort of coverage that would make him pass WP:N; the article would have almost certainly been deleted at AfD.  Sandstein  07:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. I'm not big on actually endorsing misused speedies, but Sandstein's got a great point. Unless someone can find some sources to prove notability, it's likely a waste of time to restore the article. Likely this'll overturn, given that there're a lot of people who are trying to send a message by !voting overturn on this sort of DRV (I count myself as one of them). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Sandstein (76 unique Googles of which some are mis-spellings of Stan Boardman) and citing Geogre's Law. WP:SPA seems unusually well versed in Wiki ways... Guy ( Help!) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list The reasons speedy articles that are not valid speedys should always be overturned her, even if they appear hopeless are that 1/someone might find something given a chance, and Deletion Review is not AfD--to argue over whether there are sufficient ghits here is to argue in the wrong place. and 2/ otherwise admins making improper deletions will continue on their ways, and delete things that might be supportable as is, but where the often--intimidated newbies will not bring here. If a valid defense for a speedy here is that it would not standard afd, then the speedy criterion becomes anything that will not stand at afd, but no single admin is qualified to tell tha, and consequently proposal to that effect have always been rejected. Geogre claimed only a strong correlation, not a perfect one, between miscapitalization & unsuitability (& he's right, there certainly is a correlation). If someone seriously propose that miscapitalization be a speedy criterion, let them try to propose it. DGG ( talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC). reply
  • Overturn and list Process is important. The article asserted the notability of the subject, so a speedy was improper. This is not the first out-of-process deletion by User:Orangemike, and DRV needs to consistently overturn the actions of any administrator who fails to abide by the wishes of the community. DickClarkMises ( talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm rather uncomfortable with what I seem to be hearing here, which is the assertion that the mere use of the word "notable" in an article about, say, some kid with a YouTube vid and a podcast makes it invulnerable to speedies! -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
If an editor finds the governing policy or guideline to be problematic, he or she should work to change or clarify it. Process is important, as it makes it easier to work together comfortably and effectively. Right now, the A7 speedy delete criterion reads, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. [emph. added] DickClarkMises ( talk) 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, I should add that Orangemike is pleasant to work with--I just disagree with his interpretation/application of the policy above. DickClarkMises ( talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, and not just for pragmatic reasons - I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to why this is an invalid CSD A7 speedy? The guy has a website, does podcasts/internet radio, and YouTube videos. In what way does that "indicate why its subject is important or significant"? In what way is that "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable"? Are some people under the misapprehension that this guy actually has a radio show on a real over-the-airwaves radio station? -- Stormie ( talk) 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list: No reason not to have an actual discussion if an editor believes in good faith that the article is notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list, while I don't rate its chances at AfD, speedy deletion is restricted to specific criteria for a good reason. If the deletion is both controversial and fails to properly meet WP:CSD then I think an AfD discussion is the best way to clarify it. ~ mazca t | c 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 11:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The admin who deleted the page is free to close the DRV by agreement with the lister. Perhaps its time to change the deletion review page. Clearly, some people prefer not to contact the deleting admin first. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I've now been pointed to a request on OrangeMike's talk page which is either archived or removed. Thanks. Endorse deletion as there is no significant claim of notability here, and in so far as there is a claim of notability, it hasn't a snowball's chance at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Claim of notability. Good chance that good sources exist. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am the person who originally made the "Stan Burdman" wiki page. I would just like to say that I completely understand if you admin guys decide not to resurrect the page. Stan Burdman is not classically famous like a Howard Stern, but, in all fairness, Stan has a solid fanbase of a few thousand people for his podcast, videos, etc. I respect the opinion of you admins and will not fight whatever decision you guys come to, you've been doing this for a while and I truly believe you guys know best. Braddj1977 ( talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • List at AFD Since the nominator is being so reasonable why not let the article have it's day in court? Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Weak overturn This one is close to being speedy-able as the assertion of notability was apparently really weak. I can't see the article so i don't know for certain, but I'm see at least 2 people who _can_ see the article think it's debatable. Hobit ( talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_13&oldid=1096887588"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 Deletion review archives: 2008 August August 14 >

13 August 2008

  • Sonic shower – There's no real consensus here, though it's clear that one editor's insistent view that the close was "nonsensical" is not shared by the community (such divisive arguments are never helpful on this page). There is sufficient will to userfy and allow a new, article, using reliable non-fiction sources, that focuses on speculation about the possibility of a real sonic shower rather than Star Trek--there is consensus that the Star Trek use (or similar) in and of itself is not notable. I'm somewhat arbitrarily going to put it in Lifebaka's userspace, since he's the one actually tracking down sources here, but of course anyone can work on it there or move it somewhere else if preferred. Note that only an article with a substantially different focus will not be subject to WP:CSD#G4. – Chick Bowen 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sonic shower ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

AfDs may not be a vote, but in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) when seven editors in good standing argue to keep and another argues to merge, we do not have a consensus to delete, especially when the deletes are unsubstantiated WP:JNN in nature. Seven editors in good standing argued to keep and one argued to merge. The closer claims that the only sources are wikis, but a Google book search (see [1]) shows that this claim is simply not true. Thus saying that verifiability outweighs consensus is inaccurate, because the article can be verified by multiple published books and because it is exists in multiple published books, it is thus notable. Please note that a different editor had raised concerns with the closing admin prior to this DRV: User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FSonic shower .282nd_nomination.29.Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Actually, several of the deletes point out that the sources in the article were two other wikis, which we all know are not reliable, and thus the article was unverifiable. Sandstein noted this in his close, which seems reasonable. 'Keep deleted'. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The hits included verifiable information in published books, which is why the close was unreasonable and the article should be undeleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This search is better. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
A note to the folks who have turned up all of the sources here: next time, do it during the AFD, not in DRV. Neutral, as the sources presented seem rather in-world or minimal in reference. Carry on. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The keep arguments were weak and did not successfully refute any delete arguments. Without some reliable, non-fiction sources to establish notability of the subject, there's no good reason to overturn. If exact examples can be provided, I will reconsider; I did not see any in the Google books search. lifebaka ++ 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • By contrast, the delete arguments were weak and the keep arguments effectively refuted them by providing reliable sources to establish notability, which is why the discussion must be overturned. Such sources as this, an interview, provides out of universe commentary. This ones also seems to be a real world usage of the term. Thus, at worst we can make some kind of disambugation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hem. I'm not convinced that the Star Trek item has merit for its own article from the first. Is the concept used in any other shows?
The second link is unrelated to the previous article, and by itself isn't enough to merit an article. But I'll bet that idea has been discussed elsewhere, likely under a different name. I'm not satisfied enough with either to switch my opinion on this one, but I'd like to note that Sandstein's close doesn't preclude an article about a different topic. I'm heading through the books hits farther to check if there are more. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is used in other media. Here are three books. So I'm currently unsure what to make of it, and am switching to neutral. lifebaka ++ 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for keeping an open-mind and engaging in productive discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Eh, I hadn't finished looking yet. These three books are non fiction and contain "sonic shower" in what seems like a related context. Relevant quotes are, in order,
  1. "... rather than the traditional view screen on the bridge, and details of the Captain's quarters which includes a sonic shower and a 360-degree mirror). ..."
  2. "... take a sonic-shower, undergo a light therapy session, see a play, be transformed into an opera diva, ride a pink mini-cycle, slide into a latex skin, ..."
  3. "One can wash in a "sonic" shower, c be scrubbed in a conventional tub by the ver faithful family robot or be dressed by a ..." (typos?)
Can't tell if any of them are useful, but it's what I found. I'll see if I can get my hands on any of them as quick as I can. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
(conflicted) That is certainly helpful. :) The Google Books link above led me to another fiction ref, too. [2] ("...the sonic shower didn't use water. It used pulses of inaudible sound and a stream of heated air to gently remove dead skin cells, dirt, and excess oil.") This clearly verifies some materials I see in the deleted version. The WP:V argument is glaringly false. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn unreasonable close, not taking into account the information presented. DGG ( talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, the information presented did not refute the valid arguments to delete. A search on Google Books turning up a lot of hits may indicate that reliable sources are likely, but does not prove their existence. Despite the insistence of editors in the debate that sources were out there, none were either presented for argument or added to the article. The likely existence of sources does not satisfy inclusion criteria and these arguments were rightly afforded less weight. Sher eth 18:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The Google books results refuted the invalid "reasons" to delete an article that was improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist. Sources were presented in the discussion and above. The claims that sources don't exist is dishonest and inaccurate based on this reality. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • improperly nominated in the first place as an earlier AfD closed as a decisive keep by demonstrating that reliable sources exist -- that AfD was almost a year ago, and those claims of sources' existence never extended to actual inclusion in the article. Given that window to improve the article, which editors failed to do, Judgesurreal was right to nominate it. EEMIV 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn No consensus for "delete" in that discussion. The admin's comment regarding WP:V looks like a delete vote rationale, not a closing statement. There is no verifiability issue. Most fictional topics can easily be verified by the fiction works themselves, and some sources were cited above. Saying that this is unverifiable is just wrong. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Additional source: The first result in Daniel H. Wilson, " 10 Genius Inventions We're Still Waiting For: PM's resident roboticist imagines new tech that will transform our lives. Now all we need is someone to invent it," Popular Mechanics (May 2008) is none other than "Sonic Showers". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I just read the first AfD. In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are some interesting real-world related refs cited in that discussion. Could be helpful as additional source, too. :) -- PeaceNT ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn – Here are some other non-trivial mentions in real-world sources:
    • Graham, Jefferson. "'Voyager': Change in the stars", USA Today, 1998-07-24, p. E9; quote: "Outer-space cleansing: It's been much discussed, but this season, viewers will get their first peek at Voyager members taking a sonic shower. 'It's real loud,' Braga says. "A bath in sound waves.'"
    • Kirsch, Jonathan. "From Flawed World to a Flawed Utopia", Los Angeles Times, 1988-06-15, p. 8; quote: "Walden Three itself is an off-the-shelf technological conceit that offers no real surprises at all—a domed Shangri-La, providing its placid residents with the pleasures and conveniences of sonic showers, moving sidewalks, three-dimensional video walls."
    • Spelling, Ian. "The plot hit close to home for Kirk on Planet Deneva", Denver Post, 1994-09-09;quote: "Those aboard the Enterprise used a personal-hygiene device called a sonic shower to keep themselves clean." Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per the references provided in this DRV discussion, which indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy - the question is not whether now, after the fact, digging around turns up a sentence here and a sentence there that mentions "sonic shower". The question is, was the AFD decided correctly based on the article as it stood at the time the AFD was closed? As the closing admin noted, consensus does not and cannot override core policy, and WP:V is a core policy. Clearly, if the article was sourced only by two other wikis, it failed WP:V and the closing admin correctly deleted it. Rather than dashing off yet again to try for yet another AFD round two, is there some reason why Le Grand could not have requested the article be userfied, written it with appropriate sourcing and then moved it to articlespace? This constant rush to DRV every time Le Grand disagrees with a deletion is a waste of the community's time and resources and borders on an abuse of process. If the AFD is overturned, there is no guarantee that anyone so earnestly asserting that there are reliable sources for the topic will spend another second working on it. How many times at AFD have we seen articles kept on the "wait and see" premise, only to have them languish untouched for months or years as this one did and return to AFD? Keep the article deleted and let's see if Le Grand or one of the other editors who wants it restored will volunteer to userfy it and write it to actual Wikipedia standards. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • An actual waste of the communities time is your constant renomination of articles for deletion that were unambiguously kept. Unless you concede that trying repeatedly to get something deleted that is kept sometimes multiple times is somehow not "AFD round two" then you are in no position to say anything about anyone who takes obviously bad closures to DRV. Just because the AfD ended is no reason why serious encylopedists would just stop with any effort to find sources or to augment our coverage of notable and verifiable topics. AfDs that close as delete are not the end all of us ever covering that particular topic. If new reliable sources turn up, we undelete and add them to the article. The closing admin ignored the sources presented in the discussion and apparently did not do a simple search as those who commented here did that would have turned up the sources, i.e. to verify that the inaccurate claims for deletion were in fact false as eidtors have shown above. The close was wrong, sources exist, and therefore I did not ask for userfication as there is no legitimate reason why editors cannot work on this notable and encyclopedic topic in mainspace. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Whatever you say sweetie. Have some milk and cookies and try to calm down. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • There is a difference between "AfD round 2" happening one year after the first AfD, and this rehash of keep/delete rationales just a few days after the AfD. All these sources that have been dug up here could have been dug up during the AfD -- but should have been dug up when people created the freakin' article. I'd support userfying this text in Le Grand or someone else's space. But I oppose restoration to article space. There was no lapse in the closing admin's recognition that the article itself, regardless of what was alluded/linked to in the AfD, had no reliable sources. Clarely, Le Grand et al. and the closing admin. et al. disagree with where sources need to be -- I side with the folks saying they need to be in the article itself. But, this is a discussion for the village pump or on users' talk pages. Anyway. I suppose it's unfortunate that keep-!voting editors' failure to integrate the sources they found with the article led to its deletion -- and if someone wants to take it under their wing to work on in user space and later move to article space when it's actually, ya know, an article with sources, that's great. But considering how little work the article received in the ~year since the first AfD, along with the backlog of Le Grand's userfied deleted articles, I have little faith that an article restored to article space will receive sufficient attention to actually look at and review the sources. -- EEMIV ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • When new sources are found, even if minutes after the AfD, then we take these into account and reconisder. We know from User:EEMIV/Deletions that you have something against Star Wars and Star Trek articles and will make whatever argument you can to get and keep them deleted. Yes, these sources should have been used and there's no reason why those arguing to delete couldn't have found and used them to do so. Anyone who is actually here to build the encyclopedia is more interested in helping to do that then just trying to get certain articles deleted. The source searches presented in the AfD contained sufficient enough results that any neutral or reasonable close would have been keep or no consensus. Those arguing to keep would have better time spent incorporating the sources into the article if they didn't have to keep combating closed minded deletes that never acknowledge legitimate sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • We know from User:EEMIV/Deletions that you have something against Star Wars and Star Trek articles - Wow, that's quite a bit of dickish original research. Would you like me to point you toward Star Wars, Star Trek, and other sci-fi articles I've contributed toward to bring them up to featured article and good article status? Hell, I put the majority of Category:Star Wars vehicles (with a lot of help from Deckiller and Saberwyn) through a tremendous overhaul -- and not AfD, because I have a grasp of notability and sourcing. Or more recently, a quick and rational note from User:JIP led to a move and small edits to I.K.S. Gorkon rather than a possible prod deletion. And just a few minutes ago, offering to help a newbie editor fire up some other Trek-related stuff. And that's because these editors and I understand WP:GNG, we don't cherry-pick what parts of policies and guidelines we cite and ignore, we know that policies trump a single editor's minority opinion, we don't invent inclusion standards to fit our personal preference, and we don't -- as you've just done -- throw some, "Oh, you just don't like it" pixie dust into the air to cast aspersions on people whom we disagree with. You're being either hopelessly myopic or deliberately obtuse to look at my list of deletions and cull from that only that I don't like Star Trek or Star Wars articles -- for one, how about all the fair-use and copyright violations I also seek to delete? But more importantly, if you're honestly trying to size up my priorities and biases, really wouldn't an honest editor look at the entirety of my contributions -- a wealth of which work to improve Star Trek and Star Wars articles? I link form my user page a small list at User:EEMIV/Contributions, and deletions are a subset of it. And I'm sure this is at least the second time I've pointed this out to you -- just as I and countless other editors have tried to steer you toward a better understanding of what makes for notability and what makes for reliable sources. If you really think I have some vendetta against these franchises, how about we both request editor reviews or comments-on-users or whatever they're called for each of us and see what comes up? And, Jesus Christ, Pumpkin, of all the times to be a dick, this is one case where I'm actually okay with this content getting shifted to your user space and not opposing stamping it out. -- EEMIV ( talk) 03:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
            • If you objectively step back and look at the tone and text of your post (such as doing "original research" on my userspace...) that I replied to above, then you'll understand why I replied as I did. I would not say that everything you have done is somehow unconstructive and if I challenge you, it is because I know in some instances you can be better than that, but I do find a good deal of these deletions to be unhelpful and closed minded to at least possible merges and redirects without deletion. By the way, have you seen this? And why is Michael Stipe Jesus Christ? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
              Might suggest that you take this discussion up on your talk pages, as it's not really relevant to this DRV. Stifle ( talk) 23:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse AfD isn't a vote. It is odd that Sandstein would decide to delete and then make it known that he deleted it on WP:V reasons, but it could have just as easily been deleted under WP:N. If we need to overturn this deletion and then re-delete it on the grounds that the AfD should have resulted in a "deleted without explanation" or "deleted because the subject isn't notable", that's fine. As for the WP:V, the decision was correct with regard to the article both at the START and END of the AfD. Given how much frothing there was in the deletion discussion over how obviously notable the subject was, how did 5 days elapse with only memory alpha links on this article? As for the 'sources' suggested in the AfD, almost all of those referred to sonic cleaning devices (referred to by a number of different names: "sonic sink, ultrasonic sink, ultrasonic shower") which did not resemble the article subject in form nor function. An ultrasonic sink in the real world bears no resemblance to the sonic showers of science fiction. Likewise, independent sources weren't found that referred to the subject of the article as it related to science fiction. And again, google searches don't count. Protonk ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but allow userification and recreation See! How hard was that. There are like 6 sources listed above. Was that too hard to do during the AfD? If half of the sources listed above were linked in the AfD (not waved at with google searches) or, heaven forbid, added to the article, we wouldn't be here. Endorse, as the close was valid, but a new article can be created from the userified history of the old one. Sheesh. Protonk ( talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Since when has it been the task of AFD to improve poor articles? The idea of AFD is to get rid of articles that can't be improved. How hard is it to not delete notable topics so that they can be improved without all this needless bureaucracy? - Halo ( talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
IT isn't. But it hardly makes any sense to wait until after the 5 days to bring up some sources when the 5 day timeline is pretty well set. For that matter, why wait a year between the first AfD and the recent one? Why did this article go for years without sources? I'm glad that sources are here now but that doesn't change the decision at the moment of decision. Again, the EASIEST way to avoid this "bureaucracy" is to just cite the sources in the article when the information is added. Failing that, just cite the sources in the article when the material is questioned. IF that doesn't work, just cite the sources when the article gets nominated for deletion. EVEN IF that is too hard, just specifically list sources in the AfD that establish notability (the linked sources in the AfD didn't, some didn't even apply to Sci-fi topics). That's it. How is that hard? The deletion process isn't going away. WP:N isn't going away. Given those two elements of policy, the easiest way to avoid this mess of AfD/DRV/etc is to just cite the sources. IF you don't do that, what are the rest of us supposed to think? Protonk ( talk) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
If you don't want to improve the article yourself, then yes, you have to wait. Simply because you cannot force other editors into improving that article. The point of having an AfD is to delete articles that stand no chance of being improved. Editors arguing for "keep" only have to point out some sources, not add them to the article. There are sources; granted they were found a bit late, but my point stands: there is no reason to keep the page deleted now. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse bu allow userification and recreation - That does sound like a good idea, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT REAL SONIC SHOWERS, NOT STAR TREK ONES (not shouting, just for emphasis). That way, we might have a real article about a real topic and not just plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I quote from the closer's AfD statement... "It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N." So why wasn't that done instead of this DRV? The closer's rationale seems entirely justified and well-explained to me. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Sources were sufficiently presented in the AfD and the arguments for keeping were strong enough that it should not have been closed as delete. No consensus, perhaps, but there was no consensus to delete. As sources have been presented in this discussion, per the quote above, the article should be recreated and the sources added. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 22:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No, because the point of this process is to determine if the AFD was closed in a way inappropriate with the rules of AFD, and it wasn't. If you have 100 keep votes that talk about "references" that have no verifiable content, and one person says that wikipedia policies are that you need verifiable content through reliable sources, and the closer says "delete", that is completely appropriate. It is not a vote, and it is not a vote count, it is a discussion about whether the article conforms to wikipedia policy. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
That's why it was closed inappropriately. Sources were presented in the two AfD discussions and thus any claims that it was not verifiable was simply not true even with what was there as looking at the two AfD discussions (and not just at the article) revealed. Thus, the arguments too delete were fallacious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion for now, but someone may want to take the sources dug up here, actually write a sourced article about the concept, and then bring that to DRV. -- Stormie ( talk) 00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That would be easier to do if the unjustifiable deleted article is restored. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • No problem, I am more than happy to userfy it for you Le Roi, so that a better article can result. :) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I note that the instructions for this page expressly provide that "Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Thus, the argument that "since the sources to establish the notability of this concept weren't presented at the AFD, the article was correctly deleted, and we sure as heck can't restore the article even if adequate sources are available now" is completely without merit. Furthermore, even if this request weren't procedurally compatible with deletion review (which it is), I also claim that as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we should be permitted to restore the article on the basis of the sources described here, rather than concluding that because the sources weren't introduced in the AFD discussion, the users supporting the restoration of the article are in procedural default with respect to those sources, and are not entitled to any consideration of the sources at DRV. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, we can hardly expect sources to always be produced within the five or six day deadline of an AFD discussion. John254 00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That's not how wikipedia works. Almost all articles start in poor condition, then through a multitude of minor edits they are transformed into something good. It is not proper to require that editors bring in excellent, detailed, sourced drafts of an article before they may be included in mainspace. I also recommend that we overturn the deletion. The closing admin should have written his deletion rationale in the debate below, and left the job of closing the AfD to someone else. AfD hero ( talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Incorrect. According to the closing statement, this article was deleted because it can't be verified. There are sources. It doesn't matter whether they were cited in the article or not; they are still sources. To endorse such deletion statement as "sources don't exist" is I think lying. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Does WP:V now trump WP:CCC while I haven't been looking? Wikipedia default controversial deletes to "keep", not "rewrite the article in userspace" - especially since there are sources - and the closer also didn't sufficiently prove their opinion that the article couldn't be improved to meet Wikipedia's requirements. - Halo ( talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • IMHO, yes, requiring that articles be verifiable does trump the idea that consensus can change. It is not the job of the closing admin to "prove their opinion." It is the job of the closing admin to interpret the discussion in light of relevant policies and guidelines and explain the close. This the closing admin did, and there is no technical fault in the AFD that necessitates overturning. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The fault is that verifiable sources were also presented in the two AfDs, i.e. the whole verifiability matter was addressed in the actual discussions and ignored due to the status of the article itself, which if those arguing to keep didn't have to kill time going back and forth with those arguing to delete who were not willing to help improve the article then perhaps those arguing to keep would indeed have had more opportunity to instead focusing on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is not the closing admin's job to wade through a ton of Google hits in the hopes that one or more of them might turn out to be a reliable source. It is the responsibility of those wanting to keep the article to demonstrate that there are reliable sources, and posting a link to a Google search result does not demonstrate that any of the results are reliable sources. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Those wanting to keep has sufficiently presented reliable sources and there's no reason for an admin not to do a quick double check for sources himself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There's a great reason for closing admins not to do a "quick double-check" of the supposed sources presented in the form of a link to every book on Google Books that happens to contain both the word "sonic" and the word "shower" and that is that admins are volunteers with limited time to assess hundreds of AFDs every day. Expecting closing admins not only to read the arguments but evaluate the supposed sources is far too much of a demand on the admins' time. Honestly, rather than just running a Google search, is there some reason why you couldn't have followed up on it in the course of the AFD? Must you present these vague "references" and then, when you don't get your way, run off to DRV? For all of the time and effort you've spent responding to pretty much every single comment here trying to get an unsourced article restored, you could have had a halfway decent article completed in place. Is this constant arguing really the best use of your time on Wikipedia? Otto4711 ( talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The most important question here is whether Wikipedia's administrative processes exist to serve editors, or editors are here to serve Wikipedia's administration. If the former is true, then the deletion should be overturned, since the sources presented at this deletion review clearly indicate sufficient coverage of this device in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. If the latter holds, then the only question to be examined here is whether the deletion was correct at the time it was effectuated -- however, it should be noted that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and that few editors will be willing to contribute under such conditions. John254 13:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I endorse the deletion as being in course as the article stood for almost four years with no reliable sourcing present; whether that's because it wasn't available, or because the references were only tangential, I can't say. That being said, if the sources provided herein this DRV (and the AfD) meet muster, please provide the previous content to any editor willing to vet said sources and rebuild a notable, sourced, real-world-based article.

    The closer deleted an article that—as it stood—failed a myriad of policies and guidelines. Was this wrong? No. Can the article be recreated (or restored) to make par? Sure. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

    So, basically, even if we now clearly have sources to establish the notability of this device, the article must remain deleted to punish editors for not introducing the sources earlier? Wikipedia's deletion process exists to remove articles which cannot be brought into compliance with our policies, not to force cleanup, as described in our deletion policy -- deletions for the latter purpose are grossly insulting, and discourage contributors. Note that, per the GFDL, the page history of the article must remain intact to attribute the work of the original authors if we are to use any of the content of the previous article in writing a new version -- thus, the endorsement of this deletion would require any new article to be rewritten from scratch. The claim that "the previous content" could actually be used in writing a new article, without restoring the page history on-wiki, is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. John254 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This is the second time in two days someone has played the punishment card and I have to say I'm getting pretty damn sick of it. Having an article deleted is not a punishment. Admins are not to the best of my knowledge a secret society plotting the downfall of the project through vindictive deletion. I believe that your GDFL concerns are unfounded, because as I understand the process userfying the article involves undeleting it, including the page history, and moving it to a subpage of an editor's user page, i.e. User:Otto4711/Sonic shower. When the article is re-written to Wikipedia standards, it is moved to the appropriate articlespace, Sonic shower, with page history intact. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • While "having an article deleted" shouldn't be "a punishment", is is clear that some editors endorsing this deletion intend to use it as such:

    See! How hard was that. There are like 6 sources listed above. Was that too hard to do during the AfD? If half of the sources listed above were linked in the AfD (not waved at with google searches) or, heaven forbid, added to the article, we wouldn't be here. [3]

    Since the sole justification for the deletion was a lack of sources in the article itself (failure to adequately use those sources would be an editorial problem not remediable via deletion), it is theoretically true that we could simply add the sources presented here to a userfied version of the article, then move it back to the main namespace, in minutes. The resulting article wouldn't be subject to speedy deletion pursuant to CSD G4, since "the reasons for which the material was deleted" would be addressed by the provision of sources to establish notability. Likewise, since the sources establishing the device's notability would be present in the article, the article shouldn't be deleted if re-nominated at AFD, since any other problems, such as "in-universe" style, lack of inline citations, etc. would be reasons to edit the article, not to delete it. It is virtually inconceivable that any of the editors endorsing this deletion support such a pointless exercise. Rather, it is highly probable that editors supporting userfication believe that the article must be substantially rewritten before it would be permissible in the main namespace, and are prepared to misapply CSD G4 to force this result, perhaps even to the extent of requiring that the content be brought back to deletion review before it would be allowable in the article space. This would constitute the use of the deletion process to force cleanup, a result which our deletion policy expressly forbids. John254 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Oh come on. I wrote that quote. I don't see deletion as a punitive process. I see it as a practical process. It can't be indefinited because then it wouldn't result in outcomes (given the 100+ nominations per day). It can't rest on the vague promise that sourcing exists because anyone can promise. When the rubber hits the road, it has to be a process we can use to churn through 100 articles a day and see a minimum of appeals (meaning that people are basically happy with the outcome). As a result of the goals, the process has intended and unintended results. I don't think AfD should be punitive at all (in goal or outcome). Protonk ( talk) 01:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't believe the comment you quoted demonstrates that the editor in question is out to punish anyone for anything. Nor do I see anyone lined up to pounce on a properly rewritten and sourced article and G4 it. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and close as no consensus. There is not a significant verifiability issue and with due respect to Sandstein the sources did exist and it was then down to the debaters to determine whether they were sufficient. Stifle ( talk) 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn (no consensus). Probaably a merge & redirect is suitable for this one. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. That delete was the consensus from this this AfD seems to be pretty borderline. As the primary justification in the closing statement was a lack of reliable sources, and several reliable sources have been referenced in both the first AfD and particularly this DRV, then the basis for deleting doesn't seem to hold water. Possibly this should be renamed sonic shower (Star Trek) - but that's another issue. Nfitz ( talk) 04:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist if really needed. Closer's rational for delete was poor (WP:V as a problem here? That isn't reasonable and wasn't a part of the discussion that I can see). Further, sources now exist and seem to me to meet WP:N. Hobit ( talk) 07:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The "sources" which supposedly justify overturning a sensible and well-considered closure consist of mentions in assorted skiffy books and TV shows and passing mentions of these mentions. Those aren't much use for writing an article, not unless Sonic showers in popular culture is the aim. The Star Trek Encyclopedia seems to contain no more than the startling revelation that a sonic shower is a shower that's sonic. Well, there's a shocker. What's usable is trivial, what isn't trivial isn't usable. There is no "here" here, no article to be written. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The close was nonsensical and ill-considered given the large number of reliable sources and non-trivial coverage available. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 11:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Feel free to point me to these sources which address the subject in a non-trivial fashion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Stan burdman – Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Consensus below is that notability was asserted and further discussion may be profitable. – Eluchil404 ( talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stan burdman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I noticed that Stan Burdman, a famous radio dj, game reviewer, and comic, did not have a wiki page. I just thought this was strange so I made him one, using all the information on him I know and giving proper links to his radio show and all the other things he has done. The page was deleted, apparantly because you can't make wikipedia pages on people. This is really strange because I see a lot of wikipedia pages on various public figures and entertainers like Stan. I would like the Stan Burdman wiki page I made to be undeleted if that is at all possible. Thank you for your time Braddj1977 ( talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW only. The speedy deletion was technically improper because the article asserted notability ("He has written for, and hosted, several online podcasts and radio shows. Most notable of these is his entertainment talk show ..."). However, a Google search indicates that this person is not close to having the sort of coverage that would make him pass WP:N; the article would have almost certainly been deleted at AfD.  Sandstein  07:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. I'm not big on actually endorsing misused speedies, but Sandstein's got a great point. Unless someone can find some sources to prove notability, it's likely a waste of time to restore the article. Likely this'll overturn, given that there're a lot of people who are trying to send a message by !voting overturn on this sort of DRV (I count myself as one of them). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Sandstein (76 unique Googles of which some are mis-spellings of Stan Boardman) and citing Geogre's Law. WP:SPA seems unusually well versed in Wiki ways... Guy ( Help!) 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list The reasons speedy articles that are not valid speedys should always be overturned her, even if they appear hopeless are that 1/someone might find something given a chance, and Deletion Review is not AfD--to argue over whether there are sufficient ghits here is to argue in the wrong place. and 2/ otherwise admins making improper deletions will continue on their ways, and delete things that might be supportable as is, but where the often--intimidated newbies will not bring here. If a valid defense for a speedy here is that it would not standard afd, then the speedy criterion becomes anything that will not stand at afd, but no single admin is qualified to tell tha, and consequently proposal to that effect have always been rejected. Geogre claimed only a strong correlation, not a perfect one, between miscapitalization & unsuitability (& he's right, there certainly is a correlation). If someone seriously propose that miscapitalization be a speedy criterion, let them try to propose it. DGG ( talk) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC). reply
  • Overturn and list Process is important. The article asserted the notability of the subject, so a speedy was improper. This is not the first out-of-process deletion by User:Orangemike, and DRV needs to consistently overturn the actions of any administrator who fails to abide by the wishes of the community. DickClarkMises ( talk) 19:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm rather uncomfortable with what I seem to be hearing here, which is the assertion that the mere use of the word "notable" in an article about, say, some kid with a YouTube vid and a podcast makes it invulnerable to speedies! -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
If an editor finds the governing policy or guideline to be problematic, he or she should work to change or clarify it. Process is important, as it makes it easier to work together comfortably and effectively. Right now, the A7 speedy delete criterion reads, An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. [emph. added] DickClarkMises ( talk) 21:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, I should add that Orangemike is pleasant to work with--I just disagree with his interpretation/application of the policy above. DickClarkMises ( talk) 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, and not just for pragmatic reasons - I'm afraid I'm at a loss as to why this is an invalid CSD A7 speedy? The guy has a website, does podcasts/internet radio, and YouTube videos. In what way does that "indicate why its subject is important or significant"? In what way is that "a reasonable indication of why it might be notable"? Are some people under the misapprehension that this guy actually has a radio show on a real over-the-airwaves radio station? -- Stormie ( talk) 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list: No reason not to have an actual discussion if an editor believes in good faith that the article is notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list, while I don't rate its chances at AfD, speedy deletion is restricted to specific criteria for a good reason. If the deletion is both controversial and fails to properly meet WP:CSD then I think an AfD discussion is the best way to clarify it. ~ mazca t | c 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 11:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The admin who deleted the page is free to close the DRV by agreement with the lister. Perhaps its time to change the deletion review page. Clearly, some people prefer not to contact the deleting admin first. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I've now been pointed to a request on OrangeMike's talk page which is either archived or removed. Thanks. Endorse deletion as there is no significant claim of notability here, and in so far as there is a claim of notability, it hasn't a snowball's chance at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Claim of notability. Good chance that good sources exist. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am the person who originally made the "Stan Burdman" wiki page. I would just like to say that I completely understand if you admin guys decide not to resurrect the page. Stan Burdman is not classically famous like a Howard Stern, but, in all fairness, Stan has a solid fanbase of a few thousand people for his podcast, videos, etc. I respect the opinion of you admins and will not fight whatever decision you guys come to, you've been doing this for a while and I truly believe you guys know best. Braddj1977 ( talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • List at AFD Since the nominator is being so reasonable why not let the article have it's day in court? Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Weak overturn This one is close to being speedy-able as the assertion of notability was apparently really weak. I can't see the article so i don't know for certain, but I'm see at least 2 people who _can_ see the article think it's debatable. Hobit ( talk) 07:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_13&oldid=1096887588"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE