Greetings please help with the Joel Widzer page. It was deleted for being similar to advertising. I and other creators of this page have worked hard to make it a valuable piece for Wikipedia. I have looked at other bio sites and try to use the format and editing they have used. This seems to be ok until an editor comes along and changes everything. I mean gosh, what can be done here. BTW I am not J Widzer, I know him and admire his work, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg (  | [[Talk:Image:Dumbledore_and_voldermort.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| IfD)

The dispute here is mainly predicated on WP:NFCC#8 -- does including a representative screenshot in a video game article qualify as a substantially purposeful use? I think it does -- it illustrates the graphical style of the game, which is a very significant aspect that's difficult to describe in natural language, and provides a bit of insight into the game mechanics. Theoretically anything can be communicated in prose, but prose cannot convey certain information in simple and succinct terms -- consider blend modes, cell shading, and saturation contrast as pertinent examples.

Some comments on the IfD observed that the images were not referenced in the body of the article. This is true. It's not that the images aren't connected to the article; it's just that the connection is intuitive in this case and thus needs no explaining. When readers see a screenshot, they generally understand its significance immediately; an explicit statement of the connection would be superfluous.

WP:NFCC#3a (minimal usage) was also brought up. Originally Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) contained two screenshots, in violation of WP:NFCC#3a, but now both have been deleted. (The box art is still there, but it lacks any resemblance to the in-game visual output, hence their purposes are largely distinct.) I would like to see one of the two screenshots restored so that readers may gain a clearer understanding of what the game is like.

I discussed this with the closer ( User:WilyD) but our disagreement over WP:NFCC#8 seem irresoluble, hence I think wider discussion is warranted. {{ Non-free game screenshot}} has 9,034 transclusions, and while a handful of these images are the subjects of important commentary, the large majority are used just as this one was -- to illustrate the graphical style of a video game and perhaps provide a bit of insight into its mechanics. It would be nice if we had a clearer precedent to guide us, so that we know what to do with the other ~9,000. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 01:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Restore I think this makes a good case for justified fir use. Verbal description of this tends to be inadequate, and academic discussion of games always uses screen shots. DGG ( talk) 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'll explain the closure. The article contains exactly zero description of the visual style of the game. Bear in mind the images had the captions "Hogwarts is a huge castle just waiting to be explored" and "Dumbledore locked in combat with Lord Voldemort"; the importance of this second plot point occupies exactly zero words. All three unfree images are used entirely and solely for the purpose of identification of the product, that's it. None were actually used for identification or discussion of the visual style. While I don't disagree that an article on this subject could justify the use of all three images under the NFCC, this article simply cannot. Wily D 04:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is not for rehashing the arguments of the IfD. Closure was done appropriately and based on a responsibly weighted assessment of the arguments brought forward in the discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The arguement is that some comments from the IfD should've been given more weight, which is perfectly acceptable at DRV. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• • There's something of an impracticable burden here. On the one hand the deletion process is supposed to be about argumentative merit, so many would opine that me pointing out the divisiveness of the IfD would not constitute a proper DRV argument. (I'm hesitant to use the rhetoric of "no consensus", as some editors like to interpret "consensus" is very nonliteral ways.) On the other hand, this isn't supposed to be XfD number two, so we're not supposed to continue with standard keep/delete argumentation. Unfortunately, there's not much in between. Some like to say that DRV should focus on whether an XfD outcome was consistent with policy, but interpreting policy is essentially what XfD is about (these days, at least), so under that doctrine we still an "XfD take 2". In any case, if you prefer the consensus-interpretation paradigm, it's pretty clear that no consensus for either side emerged in the IfD; hence I chose to go the other route in hopes of satisfying both. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, though I perfectly agree with WilyD here. I think an easier fix would've been to change the caption on the image in question to reflect that it is a major plot point rather than deleting it. The deletion of the other image in the IfD seems perfectly reasonable from where I stand. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. DRV is for explaining and dealing with mistakes in the process of the deletion, not advancing new (or repeating old) arguments about why a page should not be deleted. Stifle ( talk) 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - discussion was correctly closed. Agree with Stifle, the purpose of deletion review is dealing with a situation where the the closing admin has made a mistake, not a second round of the deletion discussion. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If DRV were for fixing unambiguous mistakes, the system would be wholly unnecessary; admin talk pages are good for that. If DRV is for correcting improper but controvertible decisions, unfortunately that's not possible to do without either discussing consensus (or lack thereof) or commenting on the merits of XfD arguments. Again: if you prefer the consensus interpretation route, the result is an obvious overturn; if you prefer a substantive analysis of argumentative merit, I invite you to join in on the above discussion. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore The basis for the deletion conclusion was "All three unfree images in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (video game) are being used for identification, which does fail NFCC 3a & 8;" Restoring this one image will not violate the "three unfree images" reason for deletion. Restoring all three image would, but restoring this one image will not. Also, enough justification has been posted between the first deletion and this review to demonstrate the image meets image requirements. JohnABerring27A ( talk) 07:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

One of the three images so used remains undeleted and present in the article for the purpose of identifying the game. See Image:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Coverart.jpg. Is it your contention that two but not three is reasonable? Wily D 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Hi there, I ask that you re-install the page for The Prelude (band) since it is a page about an upcoming music band, which I had just created and placed the "work in progress" tag at the top of. It was deleted as blatant advertising, however this is totally unfair, I had a very good look at articles about other bands, and to be honest it is no more advertising than other pages such as The_Paddingtons, or The_Others_(band), or Guillemots, or Alexis_Blue or just about 97% of the bands that one finds in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_indie_rock_groups or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_musical_groups or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_from_London or any other category in the music/band-related pages that appear on wikipedia.

Thanks. I left a message on the Talk page of the admin who deleted it yesterday, and although he has updated his talk page, he has totally ignored my request, not even to say that he is still of the same mind. I had started collating documented sources and had already put them in there, in fact the band appears to meet criterion 4 of the WP:MUSIC notability guideline "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." - but the page was deleted nonetheless, within 2 hours (I was travelling from work at the time). As I had put in my request to hold on for speedy deletion, furthermore, it IS true that if you look at the results of a search on google for "prelude liverpool" you get 5 pages of hits since the band are becoming extremely popular, have recently been praised by the music press on both sides of the pond, and more reasons of the sort http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=prelude+liverpool&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Springfling ( talk) 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)— Springfling ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Endorse - this was a deletion for blatant advertising, not notability. To quote just one spammy clause, "The Prelude have shaken audiences up and down the country with their unique brew of classic song-writing and good time rock and roll." I rest my case. It is possible that the band is notable, but this is press-agent puffery of the most obnoxious sort. -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

sorry if this is not the correct format for answering this endorsement, I am not a wikipedia expert (yet?) - I accept your concern, however I was working on the page, and if it had not been deleted before 5 pm UK time I would have done it that very evening - inserted complete discography, removed any promo blurb and such like - as it were, I had put the tag for "work in progress" since I had only had time to insert some links and start formatting the page, so that it would not be deleted for notability reasons. Therefore, if the page were restored, I would DELETE all advert-style talk from the page and just stick to facts and links to articles etc.

Thanks. 83.67.89.26 ( talk) 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse As a WP:CSD#G11 this is clearly appropriate. As an A7 it wouldn't have been. There is no prejudice against attempting to write a neutral article from independent and reliable sources, preferrably in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 00:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G11 requires an entirely promotional purpose and the lack of any possibility of readily rewriting the article. I've just looked at it: it was a really spammy article--but the spam was in the initial section and the rest was descriptive. it should just have bee edited. DGG ( talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• • comment perhaps I'm oversensitive, DGG, but the same claim is made about almost all G11 deletions. It's not like I salted the ground after the G11! A non-spam article could be created and stand or fall on its own merits, albeit perhaps someone other than the original editor should do it. I'm just unhappy about restoring something this promotional at the request of an s.p.a. and an IP (if those are not the same person). -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion per WP:CSD#G11. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G11 (but not an A7). Suggest that the lister writes a new article and refers to WP:NPOV. Stifle ( talk) 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn: Could be written better using sources like http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/content/articles/2005/10/28/summersessions_theprelude_feature.shtml -- Faith ( talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Notable conservative columnist, was subject of a very targeted campaign wrought with unfounded accusations. Many wrote in to say that subject had shown notability. Was arbitrarily held to higher scrutiny than any wp:bio stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.8.66 ( talk • contribs)

• Endorse as closer - when you discount the IP edits (likely either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry) everyone agreed that this did not meet inclusion criteria. Even if you don't outright discount the keep (do not delete) !votes, each and every one was based either in trying to discredit the other editors as having some kind of conflict of interest (ie. accusing them of being leftists or some such), or insinuating that the deletion as something to do with a larger plot. Shades of a conspiracy theory going on here. In any case, it was pretty clear to me that the arguments based in policy clearly favored deleting. Sher eth 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

There were several independent editors who voted that notability was established and kept their discussion strictly to deletion criteria, see especially ukexpat. Much of the irrelevant conspiracy theories were expressed regarding a contributer to the discuss who did not favor deletion.

Several independent editors who, coincidentally enough, had never edited Wikipedia prior to the deletion debate and whose subsequent contributions (if any) have been limited to the debate and its fallout. Pretty clearly an instance of attempting to "stack the vote" so to speak, even though we don't vote - we discuss. Sher eth 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse clear consensus among established editors that the article failed the notability guidelines. Closer correctly ignored spa accounts and arguments not based on policy. Davewild ( talk) 21:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence was presented either in the AfD or the article which convinced that community that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted [{WP:BIO|inclusion criteria for biographies]]. Nor has any new evidence been presented here. I find no evidence that the standards were inappropriately applied in this case. (There are other biographies on Wikipedia which also do not meet WP:BIO but the correct action is to clean them up, not to perpetuate the problem.) Rossami (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Subject has well over 4,000 google hits, which was misrepresented as 188, and was covered by Canada Free Press, featured on Richard Dawkins website (not forum), History News Network and About.com. Would ask to consider restoring based on that.

The figure of 188 is the number of unique hits, which is more relevant than the 4,000 total hits. The sources cited were almost all websites written or partially written by the subject and don't count per WP:N. The about.com reference is a brief quote on a blog. We need non-trivial coverage of the subject (i.e. not stuff the subject happens to have written) from reliable sources. Hut 8.5 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure closer correctly dismissed arguments not based on policy and arguments from solicited single-purpose accounts. Hut 8.5 06:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Perfectly reasonable close based on the debate, policise and guidelines and the strenghts of arguments at AfD. In short, there was a lack of independent, reliable (not blogs) secondary sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - IPs and single purpose accounts are regularly discounted when determining the result of an AFD and DRV is a venue to point out errors in process rather than to repeat the deletion debate. Stifle ( talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Flood of Red (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD) Andrew22k ( talk) 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

notable band that have toured in Scandanavia, belgium and have headlined many tours as well as touring and supporting many major bands.

• Comment Have you got a/some reliable source(s) to show the above? If so then an article on the band appears to meet criterion 4 of the WP:MUSIC notability guideline "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." The original deletion appears perfectly fine as a good discussion failed to find sufficient evidence to meet the notability guideline. If you have such reliable sources then you can either just recreate the article to show this or I can userfy the original article to your user space for you to work on. It could then be restored to mainspace once you have ensured that it meets the notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment the sources are on the old article but sources about the tour in scandanavia, i doubt there will be any but there is evidence on their myspace, youtube video's ect. plus they have an album coming out soon. Andrew22k ( talk) 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Sorry then I have to Endorse deletion the closure seems to have correctly intrepreted the original discussion where it was decided that the article did not meet WP:MUSIC based on the sources that were originally in the article. Myspace and youtube are not reliable sources but it there is some significant coverage in reliable sources of the band after their album does come out then it could meet the notability guideline at that time. Davewild ( talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• but the videos show that they have an audience and on myspace there are tour posters and pictures. Andrew22k ( talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Actually I think punktastic recently interviewed the band and have yet to put the review up and its about the tour and album, surely they are reliable. Andrew22k ( talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Then I would suggest waiting until that review has been posted and then using either of the options I suggested above or you could bring it back here again for deletion review at that time. Davewild ( talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Abstain pending discovery of reliable sources. If needed, I may recover the text and e-mail it to you to work on or to find an alternative outlet for it. (The article didn't really establish notability: it mentioned several tours, but without any details or sources; it also mentioned several singles and a planned album, but all either self-released or on a minor label - Small Town - about which I wasn't able to find any information using Google.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment Its hard to find sources on a scottish post-hardcore band but they are notable and i want to prove it but i cant find the right kind of sources but the punktastic interview will be useful when it is publish very soon. The band are not signed to small town records anymore they are looking for a larger label for their album. what do you mean by alternative outlet Andrew22k ( talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Your comments kind of suggest they simply are not notable enough to have a wikipedia article. My advice is to go and ask Chubbles if they can help you find some sources. They are the best we have at saving deleting articles on band. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I meant another website to post the text to, such as a fan page of the band, or a different wiki with less strict inclusion criteria (see "music" listing at wikia.com. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 12:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure of the AfD, it was prefectly correct for the debate and most likely the situation of the band at the time. It doesn't look like much has changed since (the AllMusicGuide page is still blank, for example), but you are welcome to create a new version if you feel that an article on the band would pass WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2 and no new information has been presented that might justify a change of the decision. Stifle ( talk) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Miss Pakistan World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Sonisona ( talk) 14:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close unless a reason for overturning the deletion is provided. Have dropped a note on Sonisona's talk page advising them of this. Davewild ( talk) 17:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Aside from blatant COI worries, nom attempted to recreate the article within 2 days after its AfD, both in its original space and under an alternate capitalization. Gwen Gale ( talk) 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pakistan World, keep deleted without prejudice; as others have noted, the article was essentially a promotional - if it is an appropriate subject for Wikipedia, it should be written by somebody else than the original creator. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Advice. Start with good sources. The must be relaible and independent. Read WP:COI. Create article in Userspace first. Then ask someone experienced, or list it here again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion per afd and no reason given to overturn. Agree with Smokey's recommendations. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

All these comments are helpful, no worries about recreation by an uninvolved editor citing independent sources. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Close No reason provided for overturning. Townlake ( talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The article was well done.. the issues stared when some users just wanted to highlight the negative side of it meaning the controversies only with no proof.... The article needs to b e restored as there may be some parts which were promoting the pageant... but administrators should have a look at it and decide properly. I think there has been noone who has read it properly. The article has not been through a proper review....-- Sonisona ( talk) 02:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse original closure and speedy deletion. Consensus in the AFD was pretty strong that it should be deleted and the second version did not seem to have addressed the original reasons for deletion. Suggest creating a user space version (e.g at User:Sonisona/Miss Pakistan World) using the Wikipedia:Amnesia test and paying particular attention to neutral point of view, this can then be brought back to deletion review to see if it is ok to be restored. Davewild ( talk) 08:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure of AfD, and I assume that the G4 was proper as well. There's nothing wrong with the AfD closure, the consensus was pretty clearly to delete in this case. I don't quite agree with Sandstein's closing statement, but that's immatterial to the closure itself. I also suggest working on a userspace version before bringing this back to DRV. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Ulteo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD| DRV| AFD2)

Deletion review misinterpreted by admin

The new Ulteo page was deleted just after its deletion review. The admin simply argued "not a notable Linux distribution" to justify the deletion. Nevertheless, it was made very clear in the deletion discussion that Ulteo wasn't a Linux distribution, and that it was notable according to Wikipedia standards since several reviews of Ulteo products have published by news sites that are totally independent from Ulteo (such as: Slashdot, Fosswire, or Linux.com). I think that the consensus of the discussion was keep, not delete, so it has been misinterpreted by the admin. Additionally, I'd like to point out to admins that Wikipedia recommends to use deletion only as a last ressort Vautnavette ( talk) 16:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• The prior DRV merely resulted in listing at AFD in order to determine community consensus in accordance with our policies, guidelines, and other standards. That AFD was held, and its closer determined that the right thing to do was delete, based on the strength of the arguments. This is clearly a case where a large number of opinions in the AFD were from new users who didn't understand our policies and guidelines, having made arguments of little weight. GRBerry 17:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure of the second AfD. While there were many potential sources considered, the consensus among established editors was that this topic did not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. The decision by the closer to exclude the opinions offered by the suspiciously new accounts was well within normal admin discretion. Rossami (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I'd personally lean more towards no consensus, but I'm aware that I've aquired a bit of an inclusionist tendency these days. Sandstein usually has a pretty good and neutral eye when he closes, and a delete closure is far from unreasonable in this case. Those in favor of having an article on this should come back and write one once it's out of beta. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• weak Overturn. The close was a proper reading of AFD2. The keep arguments were not substantive. However, I would like to consider sources such as these: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/running_remote_linux_desktop_web_ulteo which although in blog format, is an article in reliable source by a "trusted columnist" & http://www.datamanager.it/articoli.php?visibile=1&idricercato=25369 which seems to demonstrate notability. This opinion is dependent on the assumption that these sources are independent (not sponsored or paid for in any way). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Just a note, but WP:DRV suggests !voting relist when introducing new information. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • That's not new information, but is from the deleted artice. AfD2 was sunk by very poor keep !votes. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Amendment: Personally, I'm not seeing enough in those two links to meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies and products. I'd support a move to userspace if someone independent is willing to take on the task of rehabilitating and definitively sourcing the article but not to overturn the decision and return the page to the mainspace yet. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that reputable blogs are borderline. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I almost suggested Relist as per SmokeyJoe — i.e. a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (3rd nomination) — but the clear consensus on the 2nd nomination was for deletion, aside from four or more WP:COI WP:SPAs who tried to dominate the discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Rossami's point above. Eusebeus ( talk) 20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, invalid use of DRV - this is a venue to point out how deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or repeat old) arguments why an article should be kept. Stifle ( talk) 20:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Larry Wayne Sinclair (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Was deleted as "attack page". I don't know if the deleted versions were something like "Name1 had sex and did drugs with Name2!!" completely unsourced. What I do know is that there was a version put on the talk page that seemed well sourced and balanced yesterday. Minor discussion ensued, but unfortunately, this was deleted under WP:CSD G8, the one about deleting talk pages of deleted pages. I humbly ask that the page be restored, and if necessary be WP:AFD'd. Ab e g92 contribs 14:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

second bit in quotes revised per WP:BLP GRBerry 17:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• This page was first created on 20 Feb. Having reviewed the deleted content, it was properly speedy-deleted as an attack page. The page was recreated on 22 Feb, then moved to Larry Sinclair's Allegations where it was again properly deleted as an attack page. (The left-behind redirect was administratively cleaned up on 23 Feb.) The page was recreated yet again, this time back at this title, on 28 Feb. It was speedy-deleted on 1 March under criterion G4 (recreated content). The justification used in the re-deletion was in error. G4 may not be used unless there was a prior deletion that resulted from an XfD discussion. Speedies and Prods can not be used to justify a G4. That said, the deleted content was virtually identical to the content that was previously speedied as attack information. I found no redeemable versions in history. Endorse speedy-deletion of the page but not for the G4 justification. Do not restore the deleted history of the page.
  The nomination also asks us to consider the Talk page content. The Talk page content might be redeemable and could plausibly be the basis for a replacement article. I think it violates WP:NOT#NEWS but that's a matter for AfD to sort out. Allow restoration of the Talk page. The speedy-deletion under case G8 was in error. Talk pages are where we are supposed to work out proposals for new or replacement pages. Rossami (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rossami's summary pretty much says it all. I'd be okay with the talk page being recreated, but think that the article itself will likely, if recreated, come up against several issues. Most notably, the subject is really known for just one thing, which really only gained traction on a few conservative-leaning websites. But, perhaps discussion before recreation will help, and if the article comes back AFD will determine its ultimate fate. 'Recreate talk page and leave the article deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• This is definitely a WP:BLP issue, both for the article subject and the subject of his allegations. The latest iteration of the talk page was heavy on citations, but basically they went to this reliable source and this [1] blog entry, and this piece [2] by the author of the blog entry that falls somewhere between being a reliable source and a blog entry, inclusive. (Plus one primary source akin to a court record.) I'd like to see better sourcing before we restore even the talk page. I don't believe this article would have a snowball's chance at AFD unless the sourcing was massively improved. GRBerry 17:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Desalt I recreated the article at Larry Wayne Sinclair, but it was speedied in the middle of an AfD probably would have closed as no consensus had it been allowed to continue, apparently due to some "badlyDrawnJeff" rule. There are new reliable sources from the last few days (incuding the Sydney Morning Herald, [3] [4] The Politico, [5] The Age [6] and on News Limited's site (news.au) [7] and the Times UK [8]), which would solve the previous sourcing problems with the article, but the WP:BUROcracy is in full swing to prevent the rest of us from writing an encyclopedia for some reason. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 22:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The Age and SMH are the same, just the Melbourne and Sydney versions, by the way. Daniel ( talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Oooh, is that how that works? I've always wondered. Why do they have different headline writers? Must be a union thing, I suppose. Per the below: tell your pet kangaroo I said hi! :-P -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse various deletions. Some crappy negative-info-only BLPs got deleted, what's new? Assuming the material is right for Wikipedia, and not wikinews, incorporate it to somewhere else where it won't look like an attack piece and can be presented in a balanced manner. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Shit article, keep deleted. See OTRS:2008030110007337 for info. John Reaves 23:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Gee thanks, although I doubt you read the latest version. Well, unfair of Mr. Sinclair to declare he doesn't want an NPOV article here one week and then hound publicity at a press conference the next, imo. But if he's WP:GAMEd the system, oh well. Score one for the coming whisper campaign. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 23:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oddly enough, I'm OTRS and that ticket comes up "No permission." So, maybe you might like to explain more beyond an OTRS ticket that... OTRS admins can't even access? A private e-mail to me would be fine if it's too sensitive for on-wiki. FCYTravis ( talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The ticket number is #2008030110007337, but John accidentally used the wrong number to link to it. otrs:1381977 should be better. Daniel ( talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This OTRS ticket refers to an entirely different version that was speedily deleted back in March. It may or may not have been inappropriate - I haven't looked. But at this point, it appears that the current version of the article has not drawn any OTRS complaints, valid or otherwise. Therefore, deleting the current article for reasons of OTRS is inappropriate. FCYTravis ( talk) 04:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It's partly my fault, although Reaves could have been more clear in the protection log that this was salted due to WP:OFFICE; I would have gone ahead and gone to DRV in the first place. As it was, I was being told it couldn't be unprotected because trolls had gotten there first, and forever fouled up the situation beyond all repair, which I thought was pretty preposterous. I thought, and still think, this article deserves a proper AfD discussion, rather than having to argue from a deficit against people who think Australians are a primitive people not capable of the high art of journalism, etc. Ah well, I had a dream. :( -- Kendrick7 ^talk 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• What John said but without the swearing. Are you going all Guy on us John??? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The article was well-sourced and given the references available (about 15 separate sources if I recall correctly), there was enough information available to make a decent, neutral article about this individual. Plus a discussion was already underway at AfD with the majority voting keep, so a speedy delete was out of process. Although the previous versions may have been attack pages, this clearly was not. BradV 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

For the record I am referring to the Larry Wayne Sinclair article. BradV 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The article probably should have been merged into a campaign events article (the allegations are more notable than the accuser), and should have been discussed before being recreated, but a speedy in the middle of a productive deletion discussion and ongoing improvement of the article short circuited all of that. Further, many of the deletion advocates made meritless BLP arguments. BLP does not prevent Wikipedia from reporting on well-sourced constroversy. Nor should it. Wikipedia was not the source of any of the allegations in the article, nor did the presence of the article give undue weight to the arguments, which had already been reviewed and debunked in the RS cited. Jclemens ( talk) 00:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Well-sourced article on someone who has willingly inserted himself into a national political campaign with unfounded (and probably libelous themselves) accusations. One cannot call press conferences and make public political statements about a presidential candidate, then claim privacy. Whether or not there is sufficient reason to keep this article is a subject for AfD, not speedy deletion. FCYTravis ( talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'm not over-quick to see BLP violations, but the most recently deleted version of the article was totally impossible. doesn't mean an acceptable article could not be written, though I think we should see it first before restoring it. Frankly, I don't think we should care in the least what the subject wants one way or another. We have our own standards. DGG ( talk) 01:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

(xpost from BLP/N) ::I just don't see why there's a BLP problem. We've got dozens of articles on subjects where their relevant felonious past is covered -- and again, this is something, the existence of which, Sinclair has been entirely public about in his own blog and press releases, conceding it's relevancy in coloring his allegations. We've got a half dozen articles about people who claim to have had sex with a later Presidential candidates, just counting Bill Clinton. What invisible line is this crossing? Wikipedia seems like a valuable tool in that it can fairly and dispassionately provide information here. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 02:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Nuke history, unsalt - The article history seems to contain versions that either clearly and completely violate BLP and NPOV, or which may be neutral but are inadequately sourced for such a critical point. I have not identified ANY historical versions of the deleted article which are suitable to restore. However - the point that this person may be notable enough for an article and that an article might be created which is BLP compliant is well founded. The solution is obvious - the history versions which cannot be restored under our policy should be nuked / not restored, but people should be given another chance to create an article which is policy compliant.

The claims that something was wrong with the deletion don't hold water when looking at the deleted revisions. The deleted revisions are clear violations of policy and the deletions were clearly proper. BLP is unambiguous. Libelous and poorly sourced negative comment about living people get tossed when admins find it. This was a horrible article.

It may be one which can be recreated from scratch with policy compliant content. And anyone who wants to do so should be on notice that they're going to be under extra scrutiny. I belive it's reasonable to give people a chance on it. But the old content's just bad. Much of it is credibly potentially oversightable, and all of it was bad. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Please look at the version at Larry Wayne Sinclair, as that is really the version in question here, and your arguments don't really apply to that article. The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Wayne Sinclair. BradV 02:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion As the article stood, it seems to me that it was solely about one event. It takes legendary genius or stupidity to become notable for one event in a persons life. Even with sourcing this one event to more reasonable sources, I do not think the article would pass notability. Now if this gentleman continues to insinuate himself into the public eye over a period of time, that may warrant a new article. -- Avi ( talk) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

That's actually a valid point, and, arguably, that was the exactly the case on Tuesday, but that's what just occurred on Wednesday with the National Press Club event. True, the notability might only extend to the press conference itself. Still, there's a fair amount of back story, the YouTube video with nigh on 1,000,000 hits, the monetary reward for the lie detector test, the failing of the test, the lawsuit, the dismissal. But as it stands now, the man is in jail and has a brain tumor. We might not be hearing much from him in the future. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• endorse deletion -- when looking at the sources given and looking for new sources, all I get are blogs and some Australian newspapers. No offense to the Australians, but this story doesn't really seem to have legs yet. Based on that, and the fact that it's a one-issue event, I don't think the guy should have an article. What about leaving it be for now and seeing if anyone wants to recreate in six months? If anyone remembers the person's name at all then, it might be a legitimate topic. -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The Politico is -- honest injun -- a Washington D.C. newspaper, printed on dead trees and everything and not used by illiterates in the Outback to line their kangaroo cages, or whatever you think happens to the Sydney paper. So six months from now, after the scurrilously and underhanded use of these allegations have resulted in John McCain becoming the next President, only then wikipedia will bravely come forth with a balanced article about them? I just think that's ignoring our mission statement. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 05:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

(inline reply) -- I'm sorry, I don't think a free Capitol Hill tabloid paper (according to our article on same) is necessarily a reliable source. And it's not that I think the Australian papers are bad sources -- it's that I'm inclined to question the notability of this incident if it's about an American political incident and no American press sources have picked it up. There is a real danger in overemphasizing certain incidents that happen in the campaign, no matter what side they happen on, by giving them the 'legitimacy' of an article without waiting to see if it's a flash in the pan or not. We are not Wikinews. FWIW, I'm American, read the papers, am a liberal Democrat, and this Wikipedia debate is the first I've ever heard of this dude. -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 15:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you saying that by us not having an article on this gentleman, who has done nothing more than make some rather questionable claims that made some right-wing bloggers sit up and salivate before being proven incorrect (and who has now been dumped by the ConWeb entirely for making them look bad) will be the basis for someone using these claims, building them up to the point where they'll drive the electorate away from one candidate and to another? Because that's *definitely* not encyclopedic, and it's well outside of our mission to publicize information about someone who has really been doing nothing more than apparent self-aggrandizement using the name of a popular politician as the driver. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

What publicizing? We have nearly 2.5 million articles. No one is going to find this article unless they come looking for it. Who can say now what the robo-dialers in Ohio will be telling voters in mid-November, but how is letting readers who want to know about this person remain ignorant in keeping with our mission to be a written compendium aiming to convey information? I wouldn't care which candidate is the target, I just have to suspect the robo-dialers might leave a few things out. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 06:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• While I understand your concern, it represents the exact antithesis of what we should be doing. We should provide the dispassionate, NPOV summary of events of encyclopedic merit as related in reliable sources. We are not an investigative journalism body. What you are describing sounds to me more appropriate for Wikinews. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's exactly what I would like to be permitted to do: provide the dispassionate, NPOV summary of events of encyclopedic merit as related in the half dozen reliable sources available. I don't know why you think there's any WP:OR going on here. -- Kendrick7 ^talk

• Overturn per FCYTravis. The sources were provided to flesh out the article appropriately, not just to leave it coatrack. The speedy delete was an inappropriate overreaction. -- Faith ( talk) 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Added at this time point the links for the second title the article was at. The closer can have fun sorting out which of the commentators above (hint: definitely excluding me and those who commented before me) were aware of that second title, its AFD, and its history. GRBerry 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E, I doubt we'll ever have a real biography of this person. An article about the allegations maybe, they're far more notable than the person. Mr. Z-man 04:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Since my deletion of Larry Wayne Sinclair has been questioned, I need to comment here I guess. My deletion is not based on the article's merit (nor WP:CSD#G4), but the fact that someone obviously created it to circumvent the protection of the other article. You just don't do that (as you don't create a new account once your account is blocked to continue acting on the same manner). The creator should have gone to Deletion Review instead of creating the same article under an alternative title. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  No, you don't have to DRV an article that was speedied to begin with. The fact that it was salted is irrelevant. It was presumably salted because a particularly persistent user may have kept recreating an inappropriate version. If an article is speedied based on poor sourcing/bias, that does not preclude a properly sourced, unbiased recreation. A version that is inarguably validly sourced and generally neutrally written is entitled to an AfD on its merits. There is a substantive debate to be had on whether he meets WP:BLP1E. I think he does, but there's a reasonable argument to be made that he doesn't. The place for that argument is AfD. FCYTravis ( talk) 09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Note that I am not commenting (and won't here) on whether or not the article meets WP:BLP1E, but on the decorum. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Since when do we delete articles as punishment for not following the rules? I thought we judged them on their own merit? BradV 14:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  This is not a punishment, but a protection to prevent further harm: if we start allowing people to circumvent our policies (protection, blocking, ...), we go a slippery rope (do admins now need to start blocking IPs when a user is blocked, and protect all alternative titles and capitalization when salting?) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Forgive me if I get this wrong (I'm not really familiar with the ins and outs of DRV but, I think if the article was speedied as a recreation and the article wasn't substantially identical to the other deleted versions (by either name) than the speedy needs to be overturned (although I agree the "work around" is inappropriate). A speedy deletion in the middle of an AfD needs to be done for/and cited for the "correct" reason. We can't say really that it was speedied for the wrong reason but, should still be speedied. We should speedy it for the correct reasons for transparency and accountability. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • DRV is a funny place/process. It is mostly about process, but also about merits. If we find a G4 deletion that clearly should have been an A7 deletion, we won't waste time undeleting and redeleting under the appropriate criteria; we'll just let the deleting admin know so they can hopefully get it right the next time. (See for example the Dov Soll discussion on 16 June 2008). If there is uncertainty about whether the deletion should last, we'll kick it to XfD. But, the ArbComm in its presumable wisdom has changed the DRV rules for BLP deletions, so for BLPs we need a discussion on the merits of the article, not merely on the procedural merits of the deletion before undeleting it. GRBerry 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Please accept my apols. I didn't see this before my "rant" at the bottom. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 16:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The history of Larry Sinclair should remain deleted under any circumstances; I looked at it and declined to unprotect the title based on the revisions in the history. A separate issue is Kendrick7's rush to get this article back on Wikipedia, recreating it under a different title to circumvent the salting. Kendrick requested unsalting at 19:46, 18 June. [9] I declined unsalting, and told him to write an alternate version in his userspace, at 23:21, 18 June. [10] at 23:38, he noted that he had created a new version on the talk page of the deleted article. [11], and then, three minutes later, created his version at Larry Wayne Sinclair. (see deleted revision [12] for date stamp.) It's a bit hard to assume good faith when there is such a headlong rush to get an article on the project that process is thrown out the window, and even more so when the same editor casts aspersions at those who disagree with him, as Kendrick has done repeatedly (here at DRV, and at the AFD for his new article). I, for one, am rather offended by his references to Stalinism regarding admins who follow process. While it is questionable whether Sinclair meets the bar of WP:BLP1E, it appears that sourcing may exist for the whole affair. I oppose recreation under a faux bio, but am not opposed to documenting the allegations themselves. I think that such an article would be fair game for AFD, but at least it would be an appropriate topic, rather than another half-assed "bio" which is rather coat-racky in nature. Horologium (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Horogulum, you missed that someone came along and admin deleted the talk page which you told me to create (which I had already created) before resubmitting to WP:RfPP right after I informed you of its existence, and prior to my creating Larry Wayne Sinclair, which seemed solely designed to short circuit free discussion on the matter. I haven't made any references to Stalin here or at the AfD, as far as I can see, so I have no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for painting me as a loon! -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, you did make the gulag and purge references, but at a different discussion. [13] Both pages are on my watchlist, and I conflated your comments from the two discussions. As to the other issue, I recommended that you recreate the article in your userspace, not on the talk page of the deleted article. Normally, deleted articles don't have talk pages, so it wouldn't occur to me to send you to a non-existent page that would immediately be eligible for CSD, as happened in this case. Horologium (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, OK; mind you, those were in no way comments about admins or current process, but a proposed de novo process, blah blah not relevant here.
Anyway: You are right, but the first template on the article says to discuss changes on the talk page; [14] although part of the problem is admins and non-admins might not see the same templates, I suspect. One of the technocrats need to fix the wording it that's not actually what is supposed to be done. I'll file a complaint at the technical pump. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

*Question I thought DRV was about reviewing the deletion process and the way it is used on an article by article basis not to "rehash" discussions about notability etc of individual articles (as those discussions are supposed to be held at the appropriate AFDs). Am I misunderstanding the purpose of DRV or oversimplifying in some way? Jasynnash2 ( talk) 10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The question was answered above. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 16:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion - I never saw the first article (and can't read the deleted version) so I can't comment on it. The second article however, appears to have been created out of process to evade the salting of the earlier article. I will say that I would permit recreation of an article that per WP:BLP1E was about the allegations rather than purporting to be a biography. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E. The accusation can be included in a sentence or two in Barrack Obama and sourced. That is all that is needed. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 13:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  I would disagree, because the precise reason for having an article about this guy is to allow for context to be given - i.e., that the allegations have been treated as non-credible by the media because A. there's no evidence B. he failed a polygraph C. he's a multi-time convicted swindler/fraudster. If we don't mention all that, then there's no way we can properly mention the allegations in any sort of NPOV way. I would argue that if this article stays deleted, we should just entirely ignore the allegations, as most of the major media have done. FCYTravis ( talk) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

"In early 2008 Larry Sinclair posted a u-tube video where he claimed to have had encounters with Barrack Obama involving sexual and drug related claims. Non of his claims have been verified and Sinclair has since been arrested on unrelated charges". I don't think it needs much more then that but that is probably a discussion for somewhere other then this review. Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with FCYTravis; this would violate WP:UNDUE in any other existing article that I know of; and nothing substantial here actually relates to Mr. Obama's biography so mentioning it would be particularly WP:UNDUE there. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

How about in the viral video section of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article? Gtstricky ^{Talk or C} 02:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This person is in no way connected to the campaign, so again, I'd nix such a suggestion. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion per WP:COATRACK, WP:FORK, WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:ATTACK, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ENC, AND WP:IT'S A BAD IDEA FOR AN ARTICLE, IT'S NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC, NOT NOTABLE, AND IS AGAINST EVERYTHING THAT WIKIPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR (that last one should really be a bluelink). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  We have four standards for articles: verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and biographies of living persons. Everything in the (second) article was well sourced and complied with all of those. No one was being attacked in the article, not the subject of the article nor Obama Barack. BradV 14:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Out of this person's 46 year life, the only things in the article that are not about the allegations about Obama are his name, birthdate, and hometown. Undue weight anyone? That's not a biography. That's the reason we have BLP1E. Mr. Z-man 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Um, and his extensive criminal past. And he status as a wanted felon. And the YouTube video, and the lie detector test, and the press conference.... -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  The video, the lie detector test, and the press conference are all directly related to the allegations. The "extensive criminal history" and status as a wanted felon consisted of 1.5 sentences. Every source about him is mainly about the allegations. If I see evidence that a real biography can be written about this person and not an article about the allegations wrapped in a handful of biographical details, I'll support an article. I haven't seen that yet. Mr. Z-man 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Well, I don't know what our biographies have to contain beyond the notable events in a person's life before they qualify as being a "real biography." I guess if it's just a matter of scoping of the title, then I could create the Allegations of Larry Sinclair article, but I expect I'd just end up back here again with a few more boots to the head: ZOMG, Kendrick7's creating new content under a title similar to something an admin once speedy deleted again! There's only a shadow of difference as we'd have what amounted to a BLP on Sinclair either way. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  A biography should contain biographical details - something about the person, not just what he says. The problem is not just the title, the problem is trying to write an article about allegations as a biography. Unless someone writes a real biography about this person that we can use as a reference, an article about him will always be biased toward the allegations, ignoring the unpublished 44 years of his life. An article about the allegations would contain some details about Sinclair, but it would not be a BLP. I feel like I'm arguing in circles here. The problem is a lack of sources about anything other than the allegations, until someone writes more about him, there will never be enough material to write a truly balanced biography about him. Mr. Z-man 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, uh, how is that article "against everything that Wikipedia is supposed to be for?" Hyperbole, much? FCYTravis ( talk) 15:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  • According to Wikipedia, hyperbole is exaggeration and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, and is not meant to be taken literally.. So yeah, I was hyperbolizing. Not meant to be taken literally, simply meant to convey my strong feelings about how ridiculous this article, in any form, and with any sources, is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• At this point in the conversation, it seems like the sort of evidence that would most sway the conversation is revelation of substantial coverage of the individual who is the article's subject that predate the current allegations and allow a reasonably complete biography to be written. GRBerry 15:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Further to my unanswered question aboveComment Shouldn't this discussion be primarily about this point of DRV: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions"? Do we even have a speedy criteria for "This is obviously created to circumvent the protection of Larry Sinclair. This behaviour is NOT acceptable)"? The admin in question should have let his opinion be known at the AfD that was ongoing (heck I agree that creating the article to get around the rules was wrong but, that doesn't mean the article itself is an automatic deletion (that should have been decided by the AfD). Or the admin could have used a valid reason to speedy it. The article didn't meet G1-G12 or A1-A7 from what I can see. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Question about process was answered above. Jasynnash2 ( talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Amendment: Endorse speedy-deletion of Larry Wayne Sinclair (which was added to the discussion since my earlier comment). While I think that the content on the first article's Talk page might be redeemable and I will concede that the content on this page was virtually identical, the pattern of edits does suggest that the page was created in a deliberate attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's established policies and practices. My ability to assume good faith has been stretched beyond credibility in this case. The best interpretation I can put on this is that it was a mistake by a user who did not know to use the Deletion Review procedure. If it was malicious, don't restore. If it was a mistake, fix the mistake by finishing the process here. (No change of opinion on the pages commented upon above.) Rossami (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Like I said, it was my mistake. No one told me it had been salted because of a WP:OFFICE action, and I didn't scroll down to read the entire template, but tried to use the {{ editprotected}} template on the talk page, which is the template's first suggestion. Someone else had chimed in on the talk page at that point suggesting there was no need to go to DRV either, as the sources were clearly entirely new. But, someone just went and deleted the talk page in the middle of the discussion, which was kind of rude, even if technically permissible, so I just decided to WP:IAR. But we're here now, so I'm fine with going thru DRV. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for clarifying. Comments amended. Rossami (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I appreciate it. While I'm on rare occasion not a stickler for process when it comes to building the encyclopedia, I attempt to act with the best of intentions toward that goal. For the record, I've mentioned my template-related confusion to the technocrats at WP:VPT#Templates on salted pages are confusing and suggest incorrect behavior. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 02:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - the article is still in the cache and it's a gross BLP violation that is not easily fixed. It contains original research on criminal activity (sourced to "wanted" bulletins in a sheriff's office), Politico being its best source, unproven and likely untrue claims of gay sex and drug use that are BLP issues both against the accuser and the accused, out-of-context discussion of a marginally notable person's rap sheet and unproven criminal charges. However, I would be in favor of allowing recreation if it can be done in a neutral way that is properly sourced, demonstrates notability, and avoids BLP problems. There's a good chance that the person is notable (if only for this incident so it is a potential NOT#NEWS issue) and can be described without BLP vios. If the parties can avoid rushing back to recreate it in BLP violating form then I would propose unsalting it; otnerwise allow recreation in a sandbox or user page and then propose it for a netural administrator's review at that time (or whatever the procedure may be) Wikidemo ( talk) 02:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Much BLP ado is being made about the man's criminal record, but Mr. Sinclair has been entirely open and straight forward about his criminal past, including the warrant from Colorado, about which Politico I believe is a valid secondary source -- The Sunday Morning Herald also mentions the criminal record (if not the warrant; I haven't double checked). The subject says it in his own blog, his press releases say it, primary sources say it, secondary sources say it, but somehow WP:BLP kicks in for us to say it? That's really "monsters under the bed" thinking -- straight up BLP paranoia. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list at AFD. I was looking for some way to endorse the deletion here, but neither G8 nor G4 apply, so how can I endorse it if it was wrong? MrPrada ( talk) 03:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Further Comment: This is still being covered in the news today. Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117987850.html?categoryId=2526&cs=1 who is also referring to the unrelated criminal charges and the arrest after Sinclair's conference. -- Faith ( talk) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation Yay, he did some bad things, but we have reliable sources for it. The second speedy delete was out-of-process, as there was an ongoing AfD with no concensus on either side. I'm not saying that the subject is encyclopedic, I'm just saying that if he dose become encyclopedic, we don't have to ask an admin to help. I'm an Editor of the wiki ^{citation needed} 14:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn strongly. As noted at the AfD, there's no lack of reliable sources for this subject. Completely out of process speedy deletion; AfD should have been allowed to run its course. Enigma ^message 05:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - AFD of LWS would've probably ended up delete anyway. Sceptre ^{( talk)} 19:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  That's not for you to say. Tagging it with CSD while an AfD was ongoing was not the right move. If you really believe it would have been closed as delete, then let the process run through. By tagging it in the middle you made the entire discussion moot. Enigma ^message 03:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply