Historical pederastic couples (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD AfD2)

Article closer finds delete more persuasive, but can't fault keepers. This is a highly charged and contentious article and I strongly feel that this debate needs more voices than the 24 who voted (or !voted or whatever) with 11 deletes and 13 keeps. It needs a higher percentage of the 1500 admins and 000s of editors please. This is serious. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete - my reasoning is that pederasty is a historical and not currently used term, thus is not for use in a contemporary dictionary for interpreting couples outside the areas (Classical and pre-20th cent. England). Furthermore, pederasty itself is a subject with some grave issues attached to it. The derivative article by its very existence presents a false impression of non-controversial nature. And is inherently misleading. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure Closure was correct interpretation of the discussion and deletion review is not a second chance to reargue the AFD. If we start allowing deletion reviews where we just disagree with the outcome Deletion Review will become impossible. Instead just wait a couple of months and if the issues with the article have not been addressed then put it back on AFD. Davewild ( talk) 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  True, it is pretty obvious I didn't agree, but it wasn't closed as keep and I can't see logically how this article can be improved...and I am usually an arch-inclusionist much to the annoyance of many. I will stand corrected if numbers go one way big-time. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The recent history of this article is the subject of a rather spirited discussion currently taking place here (at ANI). Given that DRV is a procedural review, this strikes me as relevant. Townlake ( talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  That seemed to be going off on a formless tangent, and there is no inherent structure to gain consensus about the article. I did note I was opening this here on both AN and AN/I. I'll get to Sandstein, article talk page etc. etc. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  Formless tangent or not, it does discuss the recent history of the article and background of how this wound up at DRV. The AfD currently linked here takes me to something from 2006 - that's not a swipe at you, I'm just trying to fully understand what's going on here. Townlake ( talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  OK granted that. I do see where you're coming from, but I worry that reams of text tends to turn off those who are not intimately involved. I can't see how the debate there is going to establish anything (and seemed to be petering out anyway. I am trying to refocus the debate on the article). Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Have added link to 2nd (more recent) AFD. Davewild ( talk) 15:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, delete. Consensus cannot trump policy, this article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOPV#Undue weight. Guy ( Help!) 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Funny.. at the ANI thread you were arguing the article as a BLP violation and when that didn't work, you're over here arguing the article as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Funny. I'm just saying.

71.195.144.222 ( talk) 14:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It is both. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure per Davewild. This discussion is meant to address process, not merits. The closing admin correctly weighed the arguments and decided there was no clear consensus for deletion. That should be an end of it. However, I do not think it was advisable to tie the hands of editors as to how editing the article should proceed. That's outside the remit of an Afd and more properly addressed by an article RfC. The article needs work, and it should have the chance for reliable sourcing. -- Rodhull andemu 15:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure Article should be improved and sourcing made more clear so these concerns, or more accurately some concerns and some accusations, can be more readily addressed. Agree with closer that keep was the correct default. Banjeboi 15:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. This article is being discussed and worked out on the talk page, and Haiduc, the main editor, is not even aware that this has occurred (he has apparently been offline since the 18th). To delete this after it made it through the AFD, without giving the editors a chance to improve it, seems motivated more by vendetta than any form of quality assurance from what is ostensibly an encyclopedia. Jeffpw ( talk) 15:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep with large amounts of work to be done. An effort has been initiated to improve the article on its talk page due to the last AfD process. The elements that are to be fixed are ones that respond to the primary objections, which include:

1. 1. Renaming the article, if warranted, to something other than "pederastic couples" as what is being illustrated in the article does not seem to have a simple English term to describe it.
   2. Sourcing all claims stringently.
   3. Rewriting portions, specifically the lead and introductory paragraphs for each section to describe the types of relationships and how "normal" they were considered in each location and era discussed.
   4. Removing POV by rewriting portions to say what each researcher or author has claimed.

Deletion implies there is no historical or intellectual merit to the claims in the article, that the article is by nature and construct irredeemable; this is simply untrue. I admit some of it makes editors uncomfortable, and this discomfort is easier dispatched, I fear, with deletion that creative problem solving. If this article is still locked, and I am unsure if that is the case, the problems are unable to be addressed by its editors with any speed, which I imagine is the order under this Deletion review. Furthermore, its primary editor, Haiduc has not appeared since two days ago and I have to point out that it is a weekend, and we should give him a few days to read and respond to the large amount of discussion that has taken place in many locations. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure per Davewild and -- Rodhull andemu. We cannot argue on any other grounds than procedural grounds here, otherwise we would really need to have a "deletion review review". It is pretty straightforward to decide on whether or not the procedures were followed correctly, but you can have major disagreements with whether the wiki rules are compatible with having this article. The AFD discussion should not continue on appeal here because then it would be unfair that there isn't any further appeal possible. Count Iblis ( talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Where the subject is notable, the way to deal with WP:OR problems is to remove the OR portion of the article, not to delete the article itself. Same goes for NPOV: the issues of NPOV, balance and undue weight can and should be addressed within the article itself. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, based in part on WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and in part on WP:IAR. To start, I want to say two things.

First, I nominated the article for deletion because it seemed to me to be original research by synthesis, which is to say the collection of unrelated persons in the list for the purpose of sustaining an argument. In the service of that novel argument, the primary author collected together individuals who were only tangentially related or not related at all (men and younger men who were sexual lovers, men and younger men who were patron and student, men and younger men who were platonic friends, men and young teenagers, men and post-teenagers, and so on) and then slapped the name "pederastic couple" -- itself a nearly completely novel term -- on both of them. The response to this criticism has been numerous people in numerous places stating or implying that I am conservative, that I hate sex, that I hate gays, that I am trying to oppress love, and so on. I hope that sort of nonsense will stop. What I hate is original research on Wikipedia.

Second, I believe that the closing admin was trying to close this AfD in good faith. I also believe that his close was a terrible mistake, and that he gave equal weight to delete voters arguing from Wikipedia policy and to keep voters arguing that any attempt to Wikipedia is an attempt to censor it. I believe that in this case our policy mandate is clear, and that this AfD should have been closed as delete for solid policy reasons.

Lastly, I think it's clear from the incredibly weak sourcing of the article, from the history of the editors involved, and from the irresponsible reaction to subsequent attempts to edit this article that its raison d'etre is, in fact, to promote a specific political viewpoint, and -- now that enough people are aware of it -- its continued existence is likely to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, much as similar articles have in the past. Therefore, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, I believe this article should be deleted regardless of whether the close was procedurally flawed. Nandesuka ( talk) 16:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

What's problematic about Nandesuka's last point is that the specific political viewpoint is not readily apparent. I see the article as illustrating that older-younger male-male relationships happened. Others see the article as attempting to promote or normalize the relationships. Again, if this is a concern, then clarity of language is in order for the article. If there are editors who consider the article only capable of promoting this political viewpoint regardless of what language is currently in it, this is an indication not of the article's writing, but a bias of the reader that the article is not able to overcome. From that view, deletion is censorship. There are too many grey areas here to make such a drastic decision as deletion. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

There is no violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH inherent in the subject of the article: a list of historic instances of what Wikipedia already defines as pederasty: an erotic relationship, sexually expressed or not, between an adolescent boy and an adult male outside his immediate family. Unless I'm missing something, every concern of Nandesuka's can be met with editing out the flaws in the article. There is nothing inherently POV about readers wanting to study historical pederasty by looking at specific cases, which this list helpfully provides (since there is much more information available about the lives of notable people, it's a logical step to look to the lives of those notable people for more information on the subject). If Pederasty itself isn't in violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, then neither is a list of pederastic relationships as they are defined in that "Pederasty" article. If certain items don't belong on this article's list, that's an editing decision, not an AfD/DRV decision. Personally, I think changing the name (and subject matter) List of notable pederasts or something along those lines, would be preferable, since there may be something about the idea of "pederastic couples" that does tend to skew the subject toward a possible POV (stable, romantic relationships being generally viewed as more acceptable than other forms of sexual contact or yearnings), but that's a name change issue, not a deletion issue. Since there's no inherent policy/guideline problem in the subject, the close was within policy. Incidentally, I am conservative and I do hate pederasty. But in considering the Wikipedia treatment of a legitimate subject, I try to be neutral, including on questions about whether or not WP should cover a subject. Noroton ( talk) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• DELETE" It is amazing how much activity goes on here in just one day! As much as I enjoy voting on things, this feels like it's merely a repetition of the earlier vote with mostly the same participants. I feel this is not what Casliber intended. Most of the votes so far are from people with LGBT interests. While these are very legitimate, it's likely to skew the results soemwhat which is why I agree on having a more representative vote if possible with fresh input.

I think this article should be deleted and any important and verifiable info should be on the relevant subject pages. The main problems I have with this page is that it uses a fuzzy and broadest possible definition of pederasty. It is also plagued by lax interpretative use of references based on my brief sampling. So just because there's many references, not all are from mainstream sources or used properly. There are other related articles like "Pederasty in classical antiquity" that have the same flaws. See the section on Aristotle and Hermias of Atarneus as a clear example of free interpretation. Not only that, it is strongly contradicted by his writings (which I can provide). Nocturnalsleeper ( talk) 16:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• DELETE" per George, Nocturnal Sleeper & others. Pure OR, WP:POINT and so on. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure, but... This article would obviously raises some hackles, but controversial or not, this is an Encyclopedia. This article should first be renamed - we have 2 other articles on similar topics that being with "Pederastric couples in ...", and the format and provisos on this article should match those. Any unsourced/improperly sourced entries must be delete ASAP - nothing like "outing" someone's ancestors either rightly or wrongly. Wikipedia's role is not to rewrite history, but to create a place of encylopedic knowledge based on referenced sources. BMW (drive) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the definition of the subject should be clear (I am by no means clear what Haiduc means by 'pederasty'), and all references should support any claim using that definition. Everything Haiduc writes is plagued by fallacy of equivocation and similar logical deficiencies. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Wow. "Everything Haiduc writes is plagued by fallacy of equivocation and similar logical deficiencies." Isn't this a personal attack of some sort? I also see this as possibly violating assuming good faith policy. Banjeboi 23:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Closure and keep No new issues are being raised here. Why not give the article some time to address the concerns raised from the AFD? Queerudite ( talk) 16:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Wait The article's primary author, Haiduc, knows his stuff and has not yet responded to many of the criticisms of the article. A good-faith attempt to fix the POV/OR problems may be the best way to demonstrate whether they are fixable or whether, as it seems to me, the "pederast" label is too inherently subjective for any clear criteria for inclusion to be found. I also don't think WP:BLP is really a concern for any of the people listed -- most of the 20th-century items are in fact quite early in the 20th century -- so there is no immediate hurry-up in getting potential libel off WP. Dybryd ( talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn, but turn into a (protected) redirect (to pederasty), as a courtesy in order to keep the substantial edit history accessible. Compare the redirect Pederastic couples in classical antiquity. -- dab (𒁳) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and keep Moni3 clearly explains the difficulties with the article, but I think fails to see that thy are just editing problems. DGG ( talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close/keep. Sandstein's closing remarks for the AfD more or less reflect what I would have done, and he very carefully picked through a contentious discussion to find the sense of the community and weighed policy vs. discussion. (Reading it myself, I found the consensus leaning toward keep.) As for the article itself, it needs a fair amount of work; anything failing WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:BLP needs to go, but I don't think the article as a whole is OR by synthesis. And a better title would be helpful. -- MCB ( talk) 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete or redirect as per dab. It's common knowledge that there is a strongly motivated group of editors on Wikipedia who have a clear agenda in maximizing this kind of content for POV reasons. A significant portion of the keep votes in the AfD came from just these editors, who had a vested interest in the article. I've long been convinced that in cases of group POV pushing, the resulting POV cruft can only be countered if closing admins have the guts to systematically discount votes from POV-involved editors. The spectrum of opinions among the other, independent, people who commented on the AfD was such that a delete outcome would have been legitimate on the strength of arguments. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Those are strong words. I participated in the AfD discussion, evidenced by my comments above. Please be clear what POV you think is being promoted here: if it's the inclusion of all information, or the promotion of pedophilia as normal (I'm assuming this is the POV construed from the article). At this point, "POV pusher" is not clear and substantially applicable to multiple participants of this argument, including yourself. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to agree Moni3. The use of "agenda" and "POV pushing" in this context are negative terms, and do not reflect historical accuracy. They merely add gas to the flames, and are in fact "POV pushing" from the other perspective. BMW (drive) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn: After the closure, a person attempted to do the things that the "keep" proponents suggested. His work was reverted, to reinsert uncited examples. The article is a POV fork without any doubt, and I can prove it. 1. What is the difference between this article and the list of gay couples? 2. What is the difference between this and the list of pedophiles? This tries to split things yet another way, and in service of a single term: "pederast." 3. Are any figures put here who are not, in their biographical articles, discussed as "pederasts?" (Answer: Yes, all.) So, an article that, in its ideal form, violates the deletion guideline and which in its real form gets patrolled and mangled to include unsourced allegations, and that means that we're better off with a category. Geogre ( talk) 11:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Correction, after the closure an admin deleted the entire article then after being called on it deleted major chunks of it, including, by my count, at least 16 sourced items and protected their version. They were later compelled to unprotect the article. None of those actions were called for by the keep proponents in the AfD. As has been stated numerous times the article needs to have the sourcing fixed as "general sources" are simply not going to be acceptable for this content. And editors have already started the process to address the rest of the concerns which falls under the category of ... regular editing. Banjeboi 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure While I would probably fall in the delete camp, I can see nothing wrong with the closer's rationale. - Chunky Rice ( talk) 18:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - we don't delete articles because they need maintenance. If we do, tell me where that decision was made and I'll start deleting the ones with a POV tag, see how far that gets me. This has references for a lot of the copy, and the editors involved have said they're intending to improve the sourcing. I'm disappointed with Fut.Perf's comment above that perceived POV from editors opining on an AFD should be a cause for their opinions to be discounted. If we're changing the way we do things with regards to potentially contentious articles, someone should probably let the rest of us know. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close There was not the consensus to delete, so it was closed properly. Yes, there are problems with the article (otherwise deletion would not have been requested) but the process was properly concluded. So... let's fix the article. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - the closure as no-consensus looks entirely reasonable to me. Aleta ^Sing 19:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Wikipedia is not censored. this article is not meant to make a normative stance about relationships between boys and older men. insofar as it does, that is a tone problem. If editors feel that the existence of this article represents a normative stance about relationships between boys and older men, I submit that might not be a problem with the article. This article had a pretty rocky road after the AfD. Let's give it a while to stabilize before we claim that it is irredeemably POV. the closing statement was clear, precise and reasonable. If, in a few weeks, someone can come up with a comprehensive critique of this article as SYN due to the problems in defining the term, there should be no prejudice against relisting. To me, WP:SYN and WP:OR are vital and need to be strictly enforced. This article should be no exception but I agree with the closer here, the article doesn't travel too far down that road. Protonk ( talk) 19:57, 20 July 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? Stifle ( talk) 20:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  Yep. I noted Sandstein's closure (which was good and approximated what I would have said) but this is a far bigger issue than the usual AfD nonnotability-type article. This needs a bigger consensus that 24 editors (have you read some of the background material and arguments). I will stand by the result here. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  • I disagree. More than 24 people see AfD every day, especially contentious AfD's--the fact that only 24 people commented does not mean that only the views of 24 people were represented, we need to assume that silence implies consent sometimes. What are you appealing to, presuming you felt the close was legitimate, to address a broader audience? Your nomination declares this to be a "charged" and "contentious" subject, which it probably is. SCO is a highly contentious subject, as is Kashmir. How does this subject differ from a subject like that (I'm not trying to make an OSE argument, I'm just noting that contentiousness is hardly rare and asking what, if anything, distinguishes this article)? Presumably the remedy you seek is deletion of the content, is that correct (I also realize I'm firing off s series of questions, feel free to ignore some at will for the sake of clarity in response)? Would another remedy be suitable (RFC?)? Thanks for answering. Protonk ( talk) 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  Thank you. DRV is a place to argue how the deletion process has not been followed, or, exceptionally, to provide new information that has not been taken into account by (most of) the editors in the AFD. Most AFDs attract 6 or fewer editors. Therefore, this listing appears to be forum shopping. Endorse closure. Stifle ( talk) 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

  Not necessarily - the issue is whether the article itself (rather than content of part of the article) is a POV fork and OR, and it is clearly contentious. And yes I have had problems figuring whether DRV or RFC or whatever is appropriate, and I will ignore the forum shopping remark. I have added some notes on why such a subject is contentious here. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete - violates WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. The article is being used by a group of editors to push a particular POV, and make something seem what it is not. Better to rid ourselves of this and confine mention of the phenomenon, such as it is, to individual biographies. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment; yes, let's censor all systematic
  • Comment. Please show evidence of this cabal you refer to or consider striking incendiary comments. Banjeboi 08:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure The closure reasonably interpreted the no-consensus result and was done according to policy. If there were something inherent in the topic that prevented it from meeting Wikipedia policies, then the closure would have been out of policy. But it seems to me an encyclopedic article can be written as a list of relationships as defined by Pederasty involving at least one person who meets WP:N. It can be written with reliable sources and in conformance with WP:BLP. There is nothing inherent in the subject that means its existence needs to be in violation of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE. Whether or not we like the article subject is irrelevant. Follow policy. Noroton ( talk) 21:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment by the closing admin: If I understand the DRV nominator correctly, he wants to get more eyeballs on the issue of whether or not the article is OR. That's probably a good idea, and we're better off as a project if as a result of such review the article is either much better sourced (if its approach is determined to be not OR) or deleted (if it is). But DRV is the wrong forum for that. We review matters of process here, not of substance, and as far as I can tell no real process issues have even been raised. The OR issue belongs on the article talk page. That's where I suggest the sources of the article be examined rigorously and individually: do they really support the claim that such and such were a "pederastic couple", and does that term have an accepted definition? If necessary, we can then discuss the issue in another AfD, which is not precluded by the "no consensus" outcome.  Sandstein  22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

- *::Yeah, partly that, and partly that the article's mere existence violates NPOV as well. I was tired when I wrote this. I figured given the issue it needed a broader consensus, and wasn't sure whether AfD3, RfC, DRV or what was the correct venue. it is a highly unusual situation. I can't fault your close at all, it's just the situation doesn't neatly fit in the process slots. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. Consensus cannot trump policy, this was and is a WP:NOR violation which fails to confirm with WP:BLP policy. JBsupreme ( talk) 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Only a few of the people mentioned in the article are still alive and the great majority of those discussed there are long dead. If there are BLP issues with the few living persons mentioned in the article, the solution is to either document the relevant info by proper reliable sources or to remove poorly referenced material from the article. That certainly does not imply that the entire article has to be deleted. Similarly, if there are WP:OR violations, the solution is to rectify them (again, either by providing good sources or by removing the WP:OR material from the text). Given the fact that the subject is notable and that there are in fact lots of reliable sources dealing with this issue (many of which are mentioned in the article), this article requires clean-up, not deletion. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure and a strong keep Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone one can edit, Policy does not and should not be allowed to trump consensus. Jimbo can delete it if he wants to but I doubt that he will do that. I urge everyone from both sides of the argument to stay cool no matter what happens and let consensus decide what happens to that article....... Albion moonlight ( talk) 00:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure and Keep, of course. I have just returned from a much needed weekend out of town and am in no condition to respond to all who have weighed in with an opinion here. I would like to thank all of you, the cons as well as the pros, for your concern for this article. In case it is kept I would like to think that you will lend a hand to improve it in whatever way you think best.
  At the same time I would like to respond to Casliber, who proposed this review, so as not to waste your time and mine. First of all the sexological definitions of pederasty which are referenced in the article by that name do not support any limitation of the term to pre-modern instances, so the statement that "pederasty is a historical and not currently used term, thus is not for use in a contemporary dictionary for interpreting couples outside the areas (Classical and pre-20th cent. England)" is itself an original idea without any support in the literature. Secondly, the claim that "pederasty itself is a subject with some grave issues attached to it" is nothing but the application of a vernacular slur to an academic debate. "Pederasty" is a general term that embraces a host of manifestations, some chaste and some sexual, some legal and others not. It also happens to make up the bulk of male homosexual history. I am sure that if you consider matters in that light you will withdraw your accusation. Let me hasten to add that I absolutely agree that some aspects of pederasty certainly (and well-deservedly) are grave issues. But are not certain aspects of all human endeavors grave issues? Would you not agree that female genital mutilation (or male genital mutilation, in the opinion of this writer) are grave aspects of child rearing? But who would presume to indict all child rearing because of that? And is not spouse abuse an important and ugly aspect of marriage? A recent statistic claimed that 25% (!) of American marriages were infected by physical violence between the partners. Does that make marriage "a subject with some grave issues attached to it" and thus to be closely monitored in Wikipedia?
  NUff said, I do not mean to make light of your very realistic concerns, and I will be the first one to speak up against anyone trying to use this article (or any others) as a justification for child abuse. If you look closely at the entries contributed by me, you will find among them a good number documenting some incidents that are ugly, unethical, offensive and disturbing. Far be it from me to paint a rosy picture of pederasty. But far be it from us to lend our joint authority to a knee-jerk besmirching (or censoring) of a complex human relationship that has seen admirable examples as well as execrable ones. Haiduc ( talk) 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I had hoped you would respond to some of the questions raised about OR and POV in the article, rather than just giving an emotional speech about moral values.

What are the objective, verifiable criteria for labeling all these disparate couples as "pederastic"? If I wanted to add a couple to the article, how would I be able to decide whether their relationship was a pederastic one or not?

Dybryd ( talk) 02:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Dybrid, why are you asking me to define pederasty here? Can we adjourn this to the article on pederasty and deal with it there? I really fail to see where you expect to end up on this tack. Is it not clear that if you have no pederastic relationships you have no pederasty?! I'm turning in for the night, so will not respond further till tomorrow. Haiduc ( talk) 03:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

You're correct that the problem of subjective definition I see with this article is also a problem with your pederasty articles in general. However, the problem is most clear in this list of examples -- and while the problem can be fixed in the main articles, I don't think it can be fixed here except by deletion.

A subjective, culturally variable definition may be fine for discussion of something as a cultural phenomenon. For example, an article called virtue or vice will be able to offer only subjective, culture-bound definitions of what those words mean. If the articles don't endorse any of those definitions, there's no problem.

However, it's a very different case if an editor takes it upon himself to draw up a list of virtuous people in history. By his own active application of the label, that editor is inevitably endorsing a particular subjective definition of virtue, and so the article can never be made appropriate for Wikipedia.

Dybryd ( talk) 04:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure DRV is not AfD round two, and there were 13 out of 24 editors calling for keep, with reasonably strong arguments. Stop arguing about WP:NPOV; that's what the AfD was for. Sometimes it feels like WP:NOTCENSOR means that we enjoy pictures of titty fucks, but any adult studies of serious subjects must be controlled; smut's okay, culture isn't.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure - This was a straightforward closure from a policy perspective, so there is no objection there. I maintain that the article itself is a sound, dispassionate list of historical facts relating to a valid subject. It is unfortunate that some people (due to their own discomfort, one imagines) would see this as inherently POV - substituting objectivity with unoffensive centrism. Only some sourcing problems here - and the eds should be given time to sort them out as most are not BLP issues. forestPIG ^(grunt) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• This article is not acceptable in its current form. For an example, look no further than the photo. The historical data on the relationship between Whitman and Duckett is complex and ambiguous. It would take a couple of paragraphs to do it justice. Instead this article simply claims that their relationship can be described as pederasty, without citation, giving no evidence, ignoring dissenting voices... and then it makes Whitman a poster boy for historical pederasty! WTF!? If stubbifying this won't stick, then it should be deleted. Hesperian 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Delete. Numerous editors here and at the AN/I thread related to this have noted the dearth of actual sourcing for the SYNTH violation this is. Further, I note that startlingly few of the listed relationships have citations to demonstrate they were pederastic in nature, as opposed to being relationships which were socially acceptable at the time, or of age differences not important to those societies. Attaching some sort of modern view that those relationships listed were either 'pederasty good' or 'pederasty bad' is SYNTH and OR either way. Further, the writing on that page is so ridiculously skewed towards the 'aww, sweet love should not be ruined by criminalizing their true and deep love' type crap. Half or more of those read like the back of a Harlequin novel, and the rest range between neutral fact and subtle cheering on. But attaching a modern interpretation to historical characters for diverse cultures and such seems like an exercise in SOAPBOXing, like trying ot vote-stack social thinking about the issue. Burn and scorch the earth it's on, unless all of those can be substantiated as being seen as pederastic at the time through WP:RS. ThuranX ( talk) 06:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. And numerous editors have countered that the article has general sourcing which needs to be converted to in-line citations. The rest of the issues can and are being address through regular editing. Banjeboi 08:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• While I've filled out the pink slip at the State Library for several of the dead-tree references, those entires I'm even passably familiar with fail the hurdle for inclusion. No consensus definition of the term, no definition of what contitutes "notable," and little if any evidence of any serious scholarly intent. I'd prefer not to ascribe motivation to editors unless it is unavoidable, but If we take the Bill Ducket example and run with it...
  * No mention of Bill in the main Whitman article,
  * The first google hit for "Walt Whitman and Bill Duckett" is www.nambla.org/whitman.htm, and
  * The first G Scholar hit is Shively's "Calamus Lovers: Walt Whitman's Working-class Camerados."
  So, even on the laziest sort of "click on the series of tubes" research reveals serious problems with the highest profile entry. Moving beyond that to the deletion debate itself, while I cannot condemn the close, I find it deeply unsatifying.
  * The delete arguments were clearly and concisely presented, and well grounded in policy.
  * The keep arguments are either a la "a huge number of R[eliable] S[ources]" appear to have failed absorb the gestalt
  * Or else make accusations about "the language of repression" and "covering up homosexual relationships."
  As it stands, this article consists of a laundry list of claims that would not last forty seconds in their respective articles, about something that the primary advocate gives the impression of being more passionate about than objective. That there cannot be a neutral well-cited article of this title is open to debate, but this venue is ill suited to that debate. That this article is not neutral well-cited is unquestionable. The solution that lends itself most to ensuring high-quality content in the long term is that this article is moved into user-space so that interested parties can attempt to improve it, with the caveat that if in six months it cannot pass deletion review and the Geogre test it will be deleted. - brenneman 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • In your research on William Duckett, perhaps you ran into Gregory Eiselein, "Romantic Whitman," American Quarterly 50.3 (1998) 670-678, which says "Whitman enjoyed romantic relationships with a number of young working-class men such as Fred Vaughan, Peter Doyle, Harry Stafford, and Bill Duckett." That's an WP:RS, right? --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Delete. As per Thuran's comments. In addition, someone dismissed BLP as only a few mentioned would still be alive; well, 1 person libelled is 1 person libelled too many. BLP concerns thus apply until you can guarantee ALL people mentioned have passed on to the great WP in the sky. Minkythecat ( talk) 08:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Have you put AfD and DR for deletion yet? Especially AfD is an ongoing source of BLP violations. Or is the one person libeled standard only apply to pages you don't like?-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure. I refuse to allow WP:BLP to cover dead people. WP:BLP is a brain-dead policy that is being gamed to delete and remove things people don't like. I suggest people work on improving it or bringing it up to desired standards rather then sneakily trying to take a second bite at the apple after ensuing AN/I drama. That's not how AfD works. -- Dragon695 ( talk) 11:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As much as I would have been in favor of deleting this article, I have to endorse as there was nothing procedurally wrong with the close. Sher eth 13:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse. I would have gone a bit further and said there was a consensus to keep; many of the problems with the articles are editing problems and can be dealt with outside of our deletion mechanisms. I don't even think we should have BLP at all, and this is one of the reasons; it is used as a deletion rationale by people who can't apply any of the "real" policies like notability or verifiability and who depend on the strength behind it and the people who will come from all over the wiki to outcry "OH NOEZ TEH BLP VIOLATIONZ"; in any case, there's nothing wrong procedurally with this close, so DRV isn't the appropriate place for it. This is not AfD, part 2. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I can't see anything procedurely incorrect with the close, which is supposedly what DRV is supposed to evaluate. --Akhilleus ( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Per Geogre, Guy and Nandesuka - the article appears to constitute original synthesis of varying sources, and while it may be interesting as an example of academic inquiry it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia - particularly given the subject matter. Avruch ^T 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well, as to the issue of whether my argument above (and those I referenced) is appropriate for DRV... Perhaps not. I don't think the closure was particularly out of order, even if I believe it was incorrect. Avruch ^T 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

So in a DRV, argue on DRV policy and consensus. In an AfD, argue on policy & merits. Basic if you want to be an Admin. -- Rodhull andemu 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• really, it's not that proscriptive. Deletion review's auspice also includes "significant new information" which can cover merit. As well as the fact that a good discussion is a good discussion wherever it takes place. Basic if you want to be an admin is that we don't do beaurocracy, that process is just a tool, and that good sense knows no borders. - brenneman 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• There's no new evidence here; just rehashing what's at AfD. Good sense knows many borders, a big part of good sense being knowing when and how to work with in the system as is. As you'll note, despite the lack of bureaucracy, no one has speedy deleted this. Process is a tool, and part of the process here is to avoid dragging arguments like this out for extended periods. If you want an another AfD, you take another AfD and get smacked down there for wasting people's time repeatedly AfDing the same article over a short period of time.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 01:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Incorrect. There is new evidence. See User:Arkhilleus at timestamp 15:24 21 July, above. You want new evidence? I think anyone who knows anything about Lord Byron is aware that the man who was famously "mad, bad and dangerous to know" had a sexual interest in underage boys, a simple fact that every modern biography of him must mention. One of the many sources for Whitman's predelictions are mentioned by Arkhilleus above. When it comes to Byron's pederasty, Ezra Pound's fascist sympathies or T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism, an uncensored encyclopedia needs to be uncensored. If the subject is clearly notable and the sources address just exactly that subject (such as Byron's true sexual yearnings were for boys), then there is no inherent WP:NPOV, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violations in the subject and any violations in the article are editing disputes, not AfD material, and therefore not DRV material. If biographer Fiona McCarthy and The Independent newspaper can discourse on this subject like adults, then we can too. If there are reliable sources for Whitman and Byron, how likely is it that there are no reliable sources for other items on that list? Here's more new evidence, taken from following the relevant footnote (7) in the Lord Byron article:

In the 1950s, the eminent Byron scholar Leslie Marchand, writing at a time when homosexuality was still a criminal offence in Britain, was expressly forbidden by the head of the Murray firm, which holds the richest archive of Byron material (everything from manuscripts to a lock of Lady Caroline Lamb's pubic hair), from writing explicitly in his pioneering biography about Byron's recurring loves for adolescent boys. MacCarthy is now able to dispel much of the mystery and doubt. She suggests that Byron's often sadistic relationships with women were a reaction to the sexually abusive behaviour that he had suffered from his nurse when he was nine. She also argues plausibly that Byron's true sexual yearnings were for boys, beginning with Edleston, the 15-year-old chorister whom Byron loved (probably chastely) at Cambridge, and ending with Lukas Chalandritsanos, the page whom he pursued (unrequitedly) in his last months in Greece. -- "On the trail of the real Lord Byron", no byline, a review of Byron: Life and Legend by Fiona MacCarthy (Publisher: John Murray) in The Independent, November 4, 2002, retrieved July 22, 2008 -- Noroton ( talk) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure — No valid reason for it to be deleted. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment I haven't made up my mind yet, but I have one question/point I think may be relevant: in regards to the problem that "pederastic couple" is a neologism we could reasonably title the article something like "Historical couples in which one member was prepubescence". It is more awkward but eliminates that concern. JoshuaZ ( talk) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Not reasonably. Not at all. Nothing to do with prepubescence. You're confused. -- Rodhull andemu 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not at all sure that it does represent "confusion" to use the common-usage definition represented in dictionaries in preference to the idiosyncratic redefinition advanced by a small number of ideologically-invested writers. Dybryd ( talk) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Let's assume good faith here instead of alleging that editors are "ideologically-invested" and "redefining" things. Banjeboi 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• I second that statement with great vigor. Even if you believe there is an agenda, even if there actually is an agenda, the best way to approach it is by being careful with sourcing. Anything else simply muddies the waters. - brenneman 01:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete Yet another POV fork depending on original synthesis to try and prove a point. Closures need to account for both consensus and policy, the latter can trump the former if evidence of a general (i.e. Wikipedia-wide) consensus. Orderinchaos 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the AfD was closed correctly. Naerii 06:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete Synthesis. Categorisation of otherwise unrelated peoples whose only tenuous connection is that they shared a sexual preference. Like organising the phone book by whether someone likes corn flakes for breakfast. Viridae ^Talk 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That's a tenuous connection? You think if this was like liking cornflakes for breakfast, this would have passed AfD? And isn't AfD's job to say whether liking cornflakes for breakfast is a reasonable thing to build an article around?-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 10:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Don't you dare lump me in with those Corn Flakes people! That's wrong! If you don't prefer Raisin Bran for breakfast, then you're just sick. Don't go spreading that Corn Flakes POV/agenda around here! </sarcasm> BMW (drive) 17:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• When academics publish papers and books on the subject of The desire to eat Corn Flakes and when it becomes a part of the biographies of Corn Flakes eaters, and when the holders of the papers of a prominent Corn Flakes eater are found to have forbiden a 20th century biographer from mentioning Corn Flakes eating (as happened with Lord Byron and pederasty, see my comment on that above, or go directly to a source, here), and when Corn Flakes eating becomes forbidden by law, then your analogy would hold up. And in that case, there should be an article on Corn Flakes lust and a list of Historical Corn Flakes lusters, because both subjects will be encyclopedic. Noroton ( talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete, per Geogre, JzG, and Nandesuka. The arguments offered up at the AFD weren't even close to convincing, and I can't see how the closer made his decision. -- Calton | Talk 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure and keep. The original AfD already showed that consensus for deletion would be unlikely, so I see no problem with the closure. I agree a lot of work has to be done to make this a good article, that is clear. But then again there are many thousands of start class articles around, often of lower quality than this one, that are never nominated for deletion. For many posters here the topic of the article plays a large role in the rational for deletion; which it should not as Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED. Arnoutf ( talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete per others. Consensus or lack thereof at one AFD does not trump the greater consensus and precedence which builds policy. -- Kbdank71 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure and Keep It needs serious work, having actual and potential WP:POINT and WP:OR and etymological and drama problems all over the shop. And no valid reasons for deletion. Plutonium27 ( talk) 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, the rationale for contesting this closure is invalid. 24 commenters is way higher than average for an AFD, and there is not a minimum amount of editors for a AFD to be closed, as the closures should be based on arguments an not on head count. AFDs can technically be closed after 5 days with only one commenter who happens to make a very good argument addressing all the concerns raised by the nominator. (I have no comment on whether the admin interpreted correctly the arguments presented). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - There was no consensus to delete this article and there was no "trumping" of consensus outside of this AfD. Ironically, the article is even more cited now than it was during the latest AfD. -- Oakshade ( talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (no consensus). The close was good. This DRV looks like AFD3, which it shouldn't be, and as such was relisted far too soon, and still looks like no consensus. Give it a few months. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment: Indeed. Quoting from the top of this page (the rules): 'This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate.' Nothing new has come to light, and the decision to close the AFD and keep the article was well reasoned. This misuse of process here is just another attempt to remove an article because some editors are uncomfortable with it. That's not a reason to delete, or review the AFD. Jeffpw ( talk) 05:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure -- I'm not sure I would have come to the same conclusion as the closer, but I can't see his decision as an error.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Delete echoing the arguments made above, viz. policy should trump a blind numbers game in matters where the material is blatantly inappropriate. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• The problem is that the editors at the AFD didn't agree on all the material being blatanly inappropiate (and neither do at this DRV, apparently), which means that the article can be fixed by removing the offending material and doesn't qualify for outright deletion. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, MY problem can't be fixed by removing "offending material" because from an editorial point of view I don't think there ought to be any such thing as offending material.

But, however offensive or tame it may be, I think giving ANY material the definitionally-ambiguous, value-laden label of "pederasty" is POV (and incoherent and meaningless). So you can "clean up" the article as much as you like, and I'll still think it makes no sense as a list.

Dybryd ( talk) 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Ooops, sorry, I didn't mean a moral offence. I wanted to mean "material that violates wikipedia policies and guidelines", as that's the material causing ofence to the editors. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't understand this objection. Any concept outside of pure mathematics is going to be ambiguous to some extent. However you look at it, a comprehensive list that includes notable persons who have had a relation with someone aged less than 16 when they were much older does have a useful value. Such relations are exceptional and people may be interested to learn that someone was involved in such a relation and want to read more about it. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

* "a relation with someone aged less than 16 when they were much older" is NOT the definition of "pederasty" used in this article. Is that what you think "pederasty" means? Why do you think so? I don't mean to be snarky toward you -- the definition you are using is in fact more objective and a little closer to the mainstream than the one Haiduc uses. Dybryd ( talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, that's the point. I don't care what the precise definition is. Suppose I'm interested in famous persons who have had relations with young boys. So, I search for that in the internet. Then since a wiki editor named "Haiduc" has compiled a list based in certain criteria that includes the items I'm looking for (but it may contain items I'm not looking for), I can use that list. So, this is useful as long as some broad criteria are used that should be defined in the lead section of the article. If the definition of the word "pederastry" conflicts with the used criterium, then one can discuss renaming the list.

Similarly, you can make a list of long lived particles. But what exactly is "long lived"? 10^(-14) s, 10^(-10) s? It doesn't really matter that much. As long as you define the criterium in the lead section, then the list is bound to be useful. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

No, that's incorrect. Wikipedia editors are not free to set up their own independent definitions of an idea in their articles -- or to choose a particular subdefinition and treat it as the main one.

In any case, Haiduc does not define his criteria in the lead -- or rather, he defines them in terms which are themselves subjectively defined and culture-bound.

Dybryd ( talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

But that problem is trivial to fix. You have to fix the problem of finding an appropriate definition. But to delete the whole article would only be justified if the list was full of nonsense. If some wiki rules are violated then that should be fixed. If the article is of such a nature that some core wiki rules can never be fixed, then the article should also be deleted. But that's not the case here.

I don't see a lot of constructive efforts to solve the problem. I also think that the disagreement about the defintion here is quite minor and you can agree to disagree. So, to delete the article on these very flimsy grounds would be wrong. This is not the correct attitude wiki editors should have. When I saw the completely flawed articles Helmholtz free energy, Fundamental thermodynamic relation and a few other thermodynamics articles, I could have nominated them for AFD, because they were so flawed that it was actually damaging for students to read those articles, never mind how many wiki rules were violated. But it never even crossed my mind to do that (I guess that it would have caused a huge turmoil as these are core thermodynamics articles). I simply rewrote these articles as you can see from the history of these articles. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

This is not a thermodynamics article. It is an article about a value-laden cultural term.

As a more apt parallel, you can discuss various different conceptions of virtue in an article on that topic and maintain NPOV. However, you cannot draw up a list of virtuous people in hisotry while maintaining POV. If a little group of Wikipedia editors get together and agree on their own definition of "virtue" which they will use as a criteria for the list they have not made the article less POV -- quite the reverse!

Dybryd ( talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure - The article may need much work, more citations, renaming, and more balance. However, an AFD has been determined, and there is no discernible reason that the AFD should be overuled. Atom ( talk) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure -- With some work that should be done, it will be an important article for those, who are interested in the history of pederasty. Fulcher ( talk) 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The Mana World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The above article was deleted after long discussion where WP:CONSENSUS to delete was certainly not met. The deleting editor closed it and deleted by quoting WP:WEB. WP:WEB is for websites. The Mana World is a software application that is installed on hundreds of thousands of Linux computers around the world, much the same as InkBall is installed on Windows Vista. The flavours of Linux that the game comes with are more prevalent than Windows Vista, making its notability much higher. Some argument has gone on around references: a quick visit to InkBall shows that its only references are directly from Microsoft, which means it should be deleted right? Additional argument centred around this being an "alpha" release: Linux is an interactive operating system - users are asked to modify and share their modifications to the kernel. The Mana World is an unfinished game with the same proviso - let the users have a say in the development. In the end, the deleting reason WP:WEB was not valid for this SOFTWARE as WP:WEB is only for websites, and the AfD had no consensus to delete. I recommend a SPEEDY UNDELETE of the article on this software BMW (drive) 10:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion WP:WEB doesn't apply solely to websites, it applies to any content which is distributed solely via the internet. Anyway WP:N also demands sources in a similar way to WP:WEB but it applies everywhere. The sourcing of other articles is irrelevant - they can always be nominated for deletion as well. The central problem is the lack of third-party reliable sources giving substantial coverage of the subject and they were not provided, and it was appropriate to close the discussion as delete on that basis. Hut 8.5 11:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Editor requesting a review apparently misunderstands the AfD process and his posts here and on the deleting Administrator's talk page suggest that he believes it was some sort of vote (eg his mention of 'creative accounting'). Additionally he persists on arguing in effect that the existence of other dubious articles means that this one should not have been deleted. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Regardless of the choice of guideline (which is curious), the subject (from the sources linked in the AfD, can't see the article) fails WP:N. The deletion review nomination seems to rehash some of the 'keep' arguments which the closing admin discounted. If other articles have the same faults as this one, then improve upon them or delete them. This particular article does not get some special dispensation for being a game or OSS. Consensus seemed to be properly judged. Protonk ( talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I chose to cite WEB because, as Hut 8.5 notes, this game is "content which is distributed solely on the Internet"; but at any rate, as you say, the application of WP:N would result in the same outcome.  Sandstein  14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - contributor to AFD I contributed to the AFD with the opinion delete, and that has not changed. WP:WEB was not cited even once until the closing admin did so. Numerous references were made to Wikipedia making up its own definitions of notability that were unfounded. The AFD was subject to canvassing by the project's developers and a warning had to be placed on the AFD against this - many of those voting keep had a conflict of interest that they chose not to justify when questioned on it. Consensus clearly indicated that the article failed WP:N and WP:V Caissa's DeathAngel ( talk) 15:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Look, I had never heard of this game before I stumbled upon the AfD. If by following the third party references and links I was able to readily and easily find notability (and therefore be this willing to argue it), I'm not sure why anyone else has issues doing the same. With respect to "voting", that's exactly what Wikipedia isn't ... it's Consensus (I'm pretty sure that was what I Wikilinked to earlier?) and the AfD certainly did not find consensus to delete. 99% of updates to any PC-based game are "distributed solely on the internet", so that's a moot argument as well. The majority of Linux distributions are downloads from the internet (because it's free), unlike Microsoft products that like to charge you to purchase, so again, the "distributed solely on the internet" statement fails again. Honestly, I don't believe that any one is asking for any form of dispensation - nobability by breadth of distribution is considered appropriate under Wikipedia's standards - very much like my suspension part example in the AfD. As a user of Wikipedia, I found this article illuminating - although I run Win XP, Vista, 2000 server and ME at home, I have downloaded a Ubuntu release of Linux to try this out: this is the kind of use that Wikipedia aims to put forward to the world. BMW (drive) 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• WP:WIGAD, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:DEMOLISH (just a few add-ons) BMW (drive) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• • All essays which could have been written by you. They weren't, but it makes the same amount of difference - none. This is compared to the guidelines which I and others have cited in favour of the deletion. Guidelines are given preference to essays, always. Caissa's DeathAngel ( talk) 18:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, WP:WEB is subordinate to WP:N (requiring significant nontrivial coverage in nontrivial sources) and WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") No reliable independent sources, no article, no exceptions, no matter what else. As to the rest, AfD is not a vote, comments which do not follow policy can and should be ignored regardless of their number. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Principles always get a higher rate than mere votes. Stifle ( talk) 20:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, consensus of those who actually discussed the article rather than the timing of the deletion nomination was unambiguously in favour of deletion; no policy-based reason to overturn has been presented. -- Stormie ( talk) 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - arguments for retention were a mix of quibbles and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; arguments for deletion were policy-based. -- Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

OdinMs is not a web content related article. It is a past maplestory private server source also known as a Server Emulator. Let me elaborate more on the point why I say so. Yes there was links to the official web of OdinMs and even forums in my article, but that was definitely not an article description of the forum/web. The reason why I leave those link was because I'm trying to explain, developers are currently continuing on the project at these webs/forums The links may be hundreds but I named 2,

Ragezone

Ragezone Forum and its official web http://www.odinms.de as an example. The person behind the deletion claim that I had written a (A7 (web):Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance.) which it not true. There was no web content being indicate here. The article was about a big server emulator project that was closed down due to court. Thats all.

Forums Links

Why I posted the link was because this internet communities places out there are still active on the edit of the project, in both forums and mIRC channels. It is not only webs that are related to the article. It is suppose to be a project written in Javascript Language being released worldwide and continuously being edited daily. There are links everywhere worldwide on various different repacks based on the official OdinMs source available for downloads. I hope any staff can continue review on the deletion in a manner of looking into what the source is like. Here is a sample of the source here written in Java, custom edited by someone I found in http://www.dev-odinms.com/forum/

Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?iyi12nptgmt There are hundreds and thousands of source repacked out there here is merely 1 from a web I found. I only intended to post 2 examples, Ragezone and Unofficial OdinMs and expect others to further edit it.

Once again, I hope the staff can see this article as a server emulator's history more like a web content article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GwNTG ( talk • contribs)

• Even so, general articles (web or not) can still get deleted for not asserting some level of notability. There's no google cache of the article, but a listing still pops up that shows the first line is "...OdinMs, is the first MapleStory private server source/a testing private server hosted on dedicated server. It was known by many as properly ..." That might be enough to assert notability and push this over to AfD, but I'm not sure. -- Ned Scott 05:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • OdinMs is famous enough or so to had 70 thousands of search result in google. I do think that it is famous enough to be posted up here, even though I'm not even a staff of it but someone active in it as it growth till what its now, if your figuring about notability. Unless you are telling what I had in the articles was false Information which it minority of its content maybe thats why I intended to left it there for further edits. But the Introduction was real throughout definitely(Google your way out) for proof. -- GwNTG —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• comment perhaps it should have its chance at AfD. DGG ( talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore this seems to me like a case where speedy deletion is not the best tool. There is apparently at least some potential for valuable dialog and collaboration among editors, so I think this should be restored, and then at editors' discretion put up for AfD for wider consideration. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:03, 21 July 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? Stifle ( talk) 13:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • that does remain an optional step. I'll support requiring it if we also require notice of deletion requests (tho a notification was in fact properly made in this instance) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)

    You might point out to me:

    1. Where it says that the notification is optional
    2. Where the deleting admin was notified

    as I can't seem to find either. Thanks! Stifle ( talk) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

    • where some procedural step is specifically required in order for it to be valid, the policy says so explicitly, since new editors cannot be expected to understand the conventions fully. I furthermore think that not doing so is reasonable as a considerable number of admins routinely ignore or reject such requests, and an editor might reasonably prefer not to take the chance. (I do not imply that the deleting admin was one of them, but a new editor can not be expected to know. ) And that's another reason to accept an appeal regardless of procedural defects from a new editor, such as the one here:, avoiding BITE. DGG ( talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not sure I agree that "where some procedural step is specifically required in order for it to be valid, the policy says so explicitly". I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that. Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy-deletion. An article about a server emulator would certainly appear to be web-content as intended under WP:CSD case A7. Once past a very short introduction, the main focus of the article seemed not to be a discussion of the server but a one-sided discussion of a minor legal dispute, complete with an attempt to post a copy of what appears to have been a cease-and-desist letter. Other than an unsourced and unsupported claim in the first line that is was "famous", there was nothing asserting any external significance. A google search turns up almost all blogs. Google News returns nothing. Rossami (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD or Userfy. Contested speedy of a weak article by a newcomer. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC) had accidentently put this in wrong place reply
• Userfy As far as Understand, OdinMS was originally a specific server emulator which seems indeed to be a website, but then developed and released source code to set up such servers, which caused them legal problems. But it isn't obvious that this source code part would move the article out of the realm of CSD A7 which also applies to groups of people nor is being the first MapleStory emulator a real claim of importance. Apart from not being a clear procedural error, feeding it to AfD in its current state might not be helpful either. Maybe it can be considered for now as part of the MapleStory story and be mentioned there and be split off and rediscussed later?-- Tikiwont ( talk) 08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

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

This discussion should be relisted to gain more of a consensus. 2 'keep' comments and 'abstain' doesn't really establish a consensus. Rtphokie ( talk) 03:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• It doesn't (establish a consensus), but the closing admin does note that it was less consensus and more of a "default to keep" situation. I'd give it a few months and renominate it, if there are still notability issues. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure There is no minimum number of contributions required for a closure to be made and it was the consensus of the contributors. If you still feel it needs deleting then you can renominate the article in a few months. Davewild ( talk) 08:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure agree with Ned - 3 months is a good stretch that I think about these days in vague 'no consensus/weak keeps' - folks are busy sometimes...Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment (As closing admin) Although I was approached by the requester, I was not subsequently informed of this DRV. Upon the request to reconsider the closure and relist the AfD, I reviewed the article talk page, and found more evidence of a general consensus against deletion of this article. I informed the requester of this finding in my reply. I agree that three to six months would be a reasonable period of time to allow for further article development and to re-review the notability of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure (Keep) Although the article needs a little work, person appears notable - someone who probably should be on Wikipedia BMW (drive) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure (Keep) Person is notable, article needs a lot of improvement. Minkythecat ( talk) 08:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - there's no minimum contribution for an AFD. Stifle ( talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

J. Dean McClain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Am requesting full AfD process; Article, though unsourced, makes claims for notability. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply