Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 January 20
2010 January 22 >

21 January 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mazes and Minotaurs ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

this article was deleted based on an incorrect interpretation of the "consensus" by the editor, who has refused to change his "verdict". He states that the arguments for deletion are strongly based on policies, whereas only a few words followed by coded-referral to same policies, spanning multiples pages which ironically also contain when they are not applied, were given as "arguments", most notably ;) about a notability issue. The "Save" side responded to that and other issues with numbers, arguments and references, which seemed to have been dismissed as simply irrelevant when they weren't. A number of posters, me included, also suggested that a Merge/Transfer be a lesser evil, seeing that a number of other articles on the same subject matter, indie rpg or retro-clone rpgs, are already on wikipedia and constitutes again a valid subject for inclusion. The editor has thus wrongly concluded that the consensus was for deletion and should have at least moved to have the article Merged/Transferred instead of deleted. --Gebeji 142.213.176.140 ( talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse closure This is an encyclopedia; subjects for articles must be notable, which generally means that significant coverage of them exists in reliable sources. This AfD debate centered on whether a website consisting of user-submitted content could be considered a reliable source establishing the subject's notability. The votes to delete were rooted in policy, which says such a website cannot be considered a reliable source. The votes to keep essentially supported ignoring that because coverage in what policy considers reliable sources did not exist. Of course, if such coverage does not exist, then the article does not meet the standards for notability. Those seeking deletion therefore had much stronger arguments, and the closing admin correctly gave them more weight. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • This is a mischaracterization of the debate. First of all there were many more sources cited than just the one in contention. Second if you read the policy, the discounting of "self-published sources," which is, I suppose, what you are referring to, is mainly on sources that are not Independant, which is not the case for RPG.net. I'm not sure that characterization of RPG.net is accurate given what it is; that is, a collection of reviews of RPGs. In any case, as I've pointed out before, that's not the only source cited. After all, in general if something is only discussed on one source, reliable or not, that's usually not enough for notability. And, again, RPG.net is considered a reliable source in all the other articles on Wikipedia for the genre of Indie RPGs. But back to the subject, as noted before, the appropriate standard for notability here, based on policy, is WP:WEB (which, besides being noted on the policy for notability of books, is also mentioned as justification for the WikiProject RPGs notes on Notability. The keep side cited numerous sources, including .edu sites, to establish notability in a genre where most of the articles I found only had RPG.net and theRPGsite as sites establishing notability. None of these sources, and none of the references to policy by the keep side, have been refuted in the Afd or elsewhere. If you are going to argue that the delete was based on policy, you should explain why you think that rather than just pointing to policy. Even discounting RPG.net, what is your basis for discounting the other sources mentioned? Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. There could have been no other outcome of this debate than a close as "delete". The keep !votes were either not based on guidelines, or were refuted (particularly in respect of the reliability of sources). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. The arguments for keep were based on the rationale that web-based user submitted reviews were sufficient to establish notability, which they are not. Delete was the correct decision. J04n( talk page) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion After discounting the non-policy votes that were advanced by the single-purpose accounts, there is a clear consensus among the established editors that this topic does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard ( talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The constant claim that the only arguments for keep came from single purpose accounts is inflammatory. At least several of the accounts used, including this one, are not new editors and definitely not single purpose accounts. I'd also invite you to read the policy again regarding such accounts, as well as editors who come to discussions for a " cause." You might notice that, despite assertions here to the contrary, even if such accusations are true (they aren't here), the arguments are not supposed to be discounted on their face, although they might be met with more scrutiny, but rather should be evaluated just as anyone else's are, on the basis of their arguments. The arguments for keeping the article cited policy and explained why the relevant policy applies. I can't say the same for the delete side, and in any case the policy arguments and citations (other than one citation) were never met with rebuttal. So is there a point besides repeating arguments which have already been shown to be false (claims of SPAs, one source, and no policy cited)? Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 15:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (delete). Email delete content to anyone interested, and refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse Web sources of this type can in exceptional cases be reliable, but there was no adequate attempt to establish them as being reliable. Reasonable discussion, and the closer did right to disregard the arguments which do not make sense in the context of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Actually we did provide some arguments, based on the Wikipedia article on RPG.net and thus the sources it points to, on why the site might be used to establish notability, being an authoritative source in its genre. We also pointed to Wikipedia policy regarding this, as well as the fact that it's being used to establish notability in other articles in this genre. We also submitted many other sources for review, none of which have been addressed. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse no reasonable chance this could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Generally, I find Juliancolton's closes highly accurate, and I understand why he closed this debate in this way.

    There is, however, a real discussion to be had over whether the debate itself was defective. Quite arguably, an rpg.net review is a reliable source. (Disclosure: I'm a registered member of that site and have, in the past, used it quite heavily.) I think that issue is not clear at all, and (just from memory) I suspect there may have been AfDs in the past wherein rpg.net was treated as reliable. Personally, I think rpg.net reviews do seem to be independent and tolerably trustworthy.

    I think there's a little more to this than the very clear-cut aspects that are obvious to anyone at first glance, and maybe it's worth asking the Wikiproject on RPGs for a view?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment You are doing it again, speaking with acronyms and citing policies as Truth that cannot be denied, yet you seemingly do not apply them equally and/or fairly because a lot of other pages on similar subjects are listed on your site and they are not up for deletion as evidenced by some comments made even here about valid sources (and please dont tell me i'm not allowed to invoke other pages, i've seen the note, as well as the assume good faith bit). From an outside view like mine, it looks like everything is written in favor of the editors and that you are not even trying to save anything that doesn't fit into a neat prepackaged form : doesn't meet established parameters, delete, doesn't meet established parameters, delete... its like trying to have a discussion with a computer.

Anyway, not that it will change anything since the decision is already made, but since you're so kind to put policies and guidelines as Truths, i have been told that arguments based on obscurity and personal dislike are not valid (WP:Obscure, WP:idontlikeit ?), yet seemed to be the basis for some of the first deletion posts, and that one of the poster actually put the article back on deletion after it has passed deletion review, which is not allowed (WP:Disruption ?). Furthermore, note that against the endorse arguments stated above, even if some of the arguments for saving the article weren't policy/guidelines based (not everybody in the world speaks WP), the notability/reliability of sources were indeed refuted (you just don't agree with them), the notability issue wasn't just limited to rpg.net (i have stated that a number of web sites, around 4 000, list the game in a google search) and that an alternative was given to keep the article (Merge/Transfer) but wasn't even considered (deletion was of course the only reasonable outcome).

As a last observation, if you want to keep the elite only status you apparently want for WP, please verify beforehand that an article meet your WP:severe and WP:unclear guidelines by having it submitted to a review board of editors, instead of allowing anybody to write anything and then come out of the blue, sometimes years after its written, telling them they do not meet your criterias, but can't tell them what to do to meet them (but feel free to browse through tens of pages of policies to try to find out why we did). That will save you and us a lot of grief (remember WP:dramafreezone ;) --Gebeji 74.58.215.192 ( talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Dissent: I'm not a single-purpose account, nor a WikiLawyer. I strongly disagree with the claims that a consensus existed or that no other outcome was reasonable. In media in which electronic journals are the primary or sole publications -- and this happens to be the case for indie gaming -- authoritative Web sources can be significant. Worse, the level of discourse here and in the closing statement treats those who advocated Keep or Merge outcomes as dishonest or idiotic; this tends toward invicility. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually, claiming that the argument was that these people are "dishonest or idiotic" is itself highly uncivil. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
And that coming from the one who started it all... we already know where you stand, and by looking at your own talk page with the big warning about harassment on top, you certainly seems to know how to make friends, and those two bits taken from that page speaks for themselves : «Get the required number of reliable sources to demonstrate notability and you'll be fine. If you can't then I guess it isn't notable for the non-cognoscenti on Wikipedia.»« I've blocked you for 1 week following continued disruptive editing against consensus. » WP:evidence ? ;) --Gebeji 74.58.215.192 ( talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Maybe, but the proof is in the pudding. Both on the Afd and here the claims of WP:SPA and WP:MEAT have been made as reasons to ignore the arguments to keep, in place of rebuttal. That's not very civil, and neither is claiming otherwise when called on it. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. About as straightforward as it gets. Tim Song ( talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Dissent First of all, the argument did not center on "one website" being a reliable source. The Keep arguments referenced a number of different websites. Second of all, the claim that the keep arguments came from single purpose accounts is both inflammatory and untrue, besides being inconsistent with WP:FAITH. Third, neither the decision to close based on consensus to delete nor the initial call to delete were based in policy, as the first gave no reasons at all and the second gave a reason that was untrue (that M&M was only discussed on one site). If numerous sites can be cited, the claim that only one site exists cannot continue to be upheld ignoring the evidence. Fourth, the arguments to keep indeed were both rooted in and quoted policy, for instance pointing out that WP:OBSCURE is not a reason for deletion (the source of several delete arguments), that because the content referenced is an ebook WP:WEB applies, such that coverage on websites counts toward notability. The web coverage (again, as shown in referenced links in the keep arguments), was not limited to user-submitted forum posts or blogs, but included articles on .edu sites and sites for RPG conventions.
    • As to the review sites which were argued as not being suitable to prove notability, they are considered suitable for that purpose for numerous other articles on Wikipedia in the genre within which this falls; WP:OTHERSTUFF, while clearly stating that the existence of other articles is not in itself an argument to keep, specifically states that articles on the same subject are. In this case the subject is indie RPGs, and there are numerous examples, besides the fact that the sources used for establishing notability for this article are themselves not only considered notable for the purposes of including articles about them in Wikipedia, and that they are considered authoritative in the area of indie RPGs and were used to establish notability of other indie RPGs which lacked the extensive coverage on additional websites that M&M has (again, referenced in the keep comments). There is also a claim on the delete side of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, which is repeated here. If the sources are supposed to be unencyclopedic there is a burden to explain why.
    • If I am not mistaken in my reading of the logs, this article was already put up for deletion, deleted, and then revived due to deletion review before being proposed for deletion again right after it was revived; this would beg the question of why an article which was brought back by deletion review could reasonably be immediately proposed for deletion.
    • Now back to the most contentious of the sites used as evidence of notability, RPG.net. The site is, as described in its article (and quoted in the keep discussions), "the second largest roleplaying forum, after Wizards of the Coast." There are user-submitted reviews on there, but the reviews for M&M on the site were not done by people who were associated with M&M (which would be the only legitimate reason to discount them as sources). The purpose of RPG.net is to provide reviews of RPGs, which are necessarily user-submitted, and the site is considered authoritative in the area of indie RPGs. The site not having its own in-house reviewers for games should not, IMHO, be used against the reliability and verifiability of the reviews; this is the mechanic the site uses to get reviews of otherwise obscure games, and is the same method used for Wikipedia.
    • The fact the very terse arguments for deletion of this article are demonstrably false (demonstrated in the arguments to keep, with sources and references to policy and web articles), as well as the arguments here, which repeat the arguments for deletion with no reference to the previous rebuttals and, again, very terse and vague arguments with no reference or sources, again demonstrably false (with references to this fact) would seem, in my opinion, not only to point to the weakness of the arguments to delete and uphold deletion but to effectively so refute them as to render them null and void. If the deleters wish to continue to support their assertion in the face of rebuttal and evidence, they should be required to respond to said rebuttals and provide their own evidence. Failure to do so would seem to concede the battle. Continuing to repeat previous arguments which do not explain themselves (simply saying things like that the article is not notable or encyclopedia without expounding as to why or explaining objections in any detail) doesn't seem to me to be a valid method for debate. Requiring standards of notability which do not follow the relevant Wikipedia policy, as cited, besides requiring at the very least some explanation for such deviation, would at the very least not in itself be following policy.
    • One side note: I do not think it was right that arguments to keep were edited afterwards by editors supporting deletion. In at least one case, the invalid, incorrect assertion that headcount was relevant and thus the editing justified in order to prevent double voting was cited as justification for the edits. The fact this assertion was made points to a misunderstanding of policy (beside the other misunderstandings of policy enumerated here and on the Afd page), and the fact the Afd close does not cite reasons but simply claims consensus makes me worry that the page was wrongly interpreted via headcount instead of on the merits of the arguments provided (especially since, as noted before, the arguments to keep were not rebutted by those proposing deletion). This may not be the case, but I would like at least to see some explanation why it is not.
    • Ultimately some explanation of why this article's subject does not conform to the requirements of WP:WEB is deserved, and if it cannot be successfully made, the deletion should be overturned again. I would look forward to at least seeing some arguments to delete that attempt rebuttal of the arguments to keep, if they can indeed be made in the face of the evidence for the arguments to keep. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Just so it is not missed; we did not repeat the arguments to keep here in the name of not simply repeating previous arguments, but they should be consulted for reference here. I would also call upon whoever reviews this deletion review to remember than neither Afd nor Delrev are votes; Wikipedia policy requires that the merits of the arguments be weighed. Arguments like "it's straighforward", It's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, and arguments which link to policy without expounding on any argument or explaining the conclusion are specifically listed as not valid arguments according to wikipedia policy and common sense. If the sources are questionable there should be an explanation as to why an editor thinks this is true, and they should address all the sources and arguments rather than just relying on attacking one. In my opinion the editors arguing for deletion have not addressed the arguments given by the other side, and have not given any evidence for their assertions or explanations for their views. The keep side has refuted every argument given by the deletes, with reference to sources both in references and in wikipedia policy. For the delete side to simply continue to repeat their assertions with no explanation, especially when their claims have been demonstrated as false (e.g. "it's only on one website"), does not seem to be productive, and if this is all they can muster for argument any reasonable person should conclude that they have lost. I would again point out that for this genre of article the most contentious source quoted, and the only one those arguing for delete have referenced at all, is considered valid both as a source and for the purposes of establishing notability for a number of other wikipedia articles in this genre (Indie RPGs). I must also point out that a number of other sources were referenced by the arguments to keep, none of which were referred to or refuted by those arguing to delete. Therefore, again, the argument that "debeate centered on whether one website was notable" is demonstrably false. Other sources and references to Wikipedia policy were made, and the delete votes had no answer at all for these arguments. Even here, they have not referenced them, but repeated past arguments which have been shown to be invalid. I hope that whoever reviews this keeps these facts in mind. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Upon suggestion of others I have brought this discussion to the attention of WikiProject Role-playing games. I would also call attention to that wikiproject's page discussing what makes an RPG notable. The sources that were presented for notability of this article were both independant and verifiable. No argument has even been attempted as to how Wikipedia policy impeaches the credibility of the sources in question. This is telling in my opinion. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • WikiProjects are not entitled to set lower notability guidelines for articles within their purview (or any articles at all, for that matter). Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Have you read the notability guidelines they list? They don't set a lower bar for notability; they just have some further information on establishing it. I only referred to them because they reiterate wikipedia policies for notability I have already linked (which have remained unanswered). Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Standard AFD procedure is that the "votes" of new and unregistered users, or users who have been specifically canvassed for their point of view, are given less weight. This was followed correctly. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Where are you getting this from? As I have pointed out many times, according to Wikipedia policy Afds are not votes. I have linked that policy every time. Please review the policy again. The outcome of Afd is decided by the arguments presented, not headcount. So posts with no argument at all, whether they come from new or established users, have zero weight. There is no policy in Wikipedia to ignore the arguments of new users (and in any event the arguments for keep, despite unfair accusations, did not come from new users or single purpose accounts (hint: I am far from a new user, and certainly not an SPA). If arguments for keep were discounted altogether because of this, not only is it an unjustified reason, not grounded in Wikipedia policy, but unfair on its face. The fact that the delete side repeatedly claims that this is a vote, and gives posts with no argument other than a vote for deletion, points to a misunderstanding of policy. The decision to keep or delete an article is supposed to be grounded in policy. The only reference to discounting new users in an Afd discussion is when they have no arguments (in which case any user is discounted) or when they make arguments in bad faith. They are not supposed to be discounted out of hand because " they are new to Wikipedia." All that aside, do you even have a response to my arguments? Have you noticed the links to appropriate policy in them? Have you read those policies? Does the delete side have any arguments that are grounded in policy, and are not these simply inflammatory arguments involving SPAs and such which are not valid arguments for Afds or DelRevs? If you look at my posts, I pointed out that the notability guideline for this sort of article is WP:WEB. I have shown numerous sources, all linked in my arguments, for consideration on that score. I have seen no rebuttal to any of my arguments here or in the Afd. If the decision to delete is to be sustained, there should at least be some argument for the deletion besides what has been so far demonstrated to be false. The fact that our arguments have been misrepresented by the other side makes me think they haven't been read, much less processed. I would invite you to do both, because I would like at least to see some rebuttal of our arguments rather than a simple wave of the hand. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Stifle has it right, Rifter. The arguments of new or canvassed users are routinely dismissed. The term "!vote" comes from the realization that this is not a vote (the ! is a computer programming symbol for "not"). That said, you might want to tone down your own rhetoric. Long, repetitive statements like this one tend to come off as a rant. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not a new or canvassed user, and I think it wise to pay due regard to all sound opinions, whether new or hypothetically canvassed. This page is patently unimportant, but procedurally deserves due process and the opinions of its advocated deserve due regard. My own interest originally lay not so much in the page, but in the seeming disregard for arguments that struck me, at least, as not unreasonable. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I know what ! means, and stifle did not use it. I linked to the relevant policies on new and canvassed users. Both explicitly say that they are not to be dismissed out of hand, although you might certainly be circumspect in looking at them. Even the policy you linked to first of all warns against claiming SPA reflexively and does not say that even they are to be ignored out of hand. It may be a practice of many Wikipedians to do it, but that's not grounded in policy. There's a difference between giving something less weight and not even bothering to read or respond to them. In any case, I and at least several of the users who have been on the keep side are emphatically not new or single-purpose. And I'm sorry that my arguments seem repetitive and long, but they are repeated because they are ignored (claims of WP:MEAT, WP:NEWBIES, and "only one source" despite refutation with evidence) and they are long because I am trying to point to all the evidence that I can. Policy is being ignored here, and so is evidence. It was claimed that only one site reviewed M&M, so we produced a number of them. We also included sites like rice.edu. Only one site RPG.net has been attacked by the delete side. Is anyone going to speak to the other sites mentioned or are we stuck repeating the argument that there is only one website used as a source (untrue, even in the original article which linked to several sources, besides the Afd that went into more detail) and that website is suspect, therefore delete? Because if you will look at the discussion, even just under my edits, I cite a lot of sources (including rice.edu and similar), refuting the claim (repeated here) that there was only one site under consideration. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • So a summary of the arguments for deleting as I understand them are:
    • "The arguments to keep only come from single-purpose accounts, so we should ignore them altogether." This is untrue, as it can be shown that the accounts used are not single-purpose, and the repeated assertion of this is not in line with WP:CIVIL. Even if it was true, SPA's arguments might have less weight initially, but their arguments aren't supposed to be completely ignored out of hand. If they make a good argument based in policy those arguments should be considered.
    • "The keep arguments ask for a special exception from WP:N." Also false. We're only asking that the appropriate notability standard be applied, and that is WP:WEB.
    • "The keep arguments cite only one website, which is not a valid source." Also untrue. We have cited numerous websites in the Afd as well as in the original article; it would be nice at least to hear why none of them is acceptable. In any case, even if RPG.net was considered acceptable, one source probably isn't enough to establish notability, and we never suggested it was. I only ask that before we decide to delete these other sources be acknowledged and addressed. The initial delete nomination came with this false claim of "only one website," the delete arguments in the Afd repeated that, and it's being asserted again here in DelRev. We've given links to other sources, so the only conclusion we can draw is that those editors arguing to delete have chosen not to read them. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Steen Christensen – Deletion endorsed. However, consensus in the discussion is that the article may be restored if someone is willing to source it immediately. Please contact myself or another sysop if you wish to have the article undeleted temporarily. – NW ( Talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steen Christensen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was deleted in August 2009 as an attack page. However, the subject of the article, an escaped Danish criminal who shot two police officers in Helsinki, caused wide press coverage in Finland. The article is a direct translation of the original Finnish article, which also includes sources. I think the user who deleted the article had not even heard of the incident but simply saw that the article said that the subject was a bad person, and immediately thought that meant the article had been written as a personal attack. JIP | Talk 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: According to G10, "Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met," so if a sourced article can indeed be created, it should be.-- Milowent ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It was an unsourced biography of a living person that described someone as a bank robber and rapist. If you wish, I shall be happy to userfy the article for you, provided that you add sources fairly quickly. NW ( Talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn speedy deletion and add sources. Because this article was a BLP about a criminal, I suppose G10 may have applied fairly (hard to say since I can't see it). However, G10 should generally be applied only when the sole purpose of the page is to disparage. If it was unclear whether the article was disparaging its subject or not, WP:PROD or WP:AfD may have been better options. If and when this article is restored, however, please do source it rigorously to comply with WP:BLP policy and because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore (temporarily) and list at AfD where the question of whether the content constitutes "attack" can be debated. I cannot see a cashe version. It does not sound like the content was so offensive as to prevent temporary restoration (whether in mainspace, or userspace as per NW). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore Just needs sources. Optionally list at AfD, but I think the sources will clearly show notability. This was one of the absurd deletions based on merely BLP unsourced without trying to source. The deleting admin would have made it much quicker for everyone to get to a decent article to have done some slight amount of work himself rather than proceed quickly and blindly. Of course, the dozen or so people who worked on the article up to now, would have made it even easier if they had added some sources themselves. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore topic seems reasonable, and I'm perfectly willing to take JIP at his word that the sources in the Finnish version are good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore I think the original G10 deletion was valid, as the article was negative in tone (it accused the subject of several horrendous crimes) and it lacked sources. However if the Finnish sources do support the content of the article then I see no problem with restoring it provided the sources are added promptly. Hut 8.5 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore provided that the sources are added soon thereafter. Tim Song ( talk) 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_21&oldid=1142604842"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 January 20
2010 January 22 >

21 January 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mazes and Minotaurs ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

this article was deleted based on an incorrect interpretation of the "consensus" by the editor, who has refused to change his "verdict". He states that the arguments for deletion are strongly based on policies, whereas only a few words followed by coded-referral to same policies, spanning multiples pages which ironically also contain when they are not applied, were given as "arguments", most notably ;) about a notability issue. The "Save" side responded to that and other issues with numbers, arguments and references, which seemed to have been dismissed as simply irrelevant when they weren't. A number of posters, me included, also suggested that a Merge/Transfer be a lesser evil, seeing that a number of other articles on the same subject matter, indie rpg or retro-clone rpgs, are already on wikipedia and constitutes again a valid subject for inclusion. The editor has thus wrongly concluded that the consensus was for deletion and should have at least moved to have the article Merged/Transferred instead of deleted. --Gebeji 142.213.176.140 ( talk) 20:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse closure This is an encyclopedia; subjects for articles must be notable, which generally means that significant coverage of them exists in reliable sources. This AfD debate centered on whether a website consisting of user-submitted content could be considered a reliable source establishing the subject's notability. The votes to delete were rooted in policy, which says such a website cannot be considered a reliable source. The votes to keep essentially supported ignoring that because coverage in what policy considers reliable sources did not exist. Of course, if such coverage does not exist, then the article does not meet the standards for notability. Those seeking deletion therefore had much stronger arguments, and the closing admin correctly gave them more weight. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • This is a mischaracterization of the debate. First of all there were many more sources cited than just the one in contention. Second if you read the policy, the discounting of "self-published sources," which is, I suppose, what you are referring to, is mainly on sources that are not Independant, which is not the case for RPG.net. I'm not sure that characterization of RPG.net is accurate given what it is; that is, a collection of reviews of RPGs. In any case, as I've pointed out before, that's not the only source cited. After all, in general if something is only discussed on one source, reliable or not, that's usually not enough for notability. And, again, RPG.net is considered a reliable source in all the other articles on Wikipedia for the genre of Indie RPGs. But back to the subject, as noted before, the appropriate standard for notability here, based on policy, is WP:WEB (which, besides being noted on the policy for notability of books, is also mentioned as justification for the WikiProject RPGs notes on Notability. The keep side cited numerous sources, including .edu sites, to establish notability in a genre where most of the articles I found only had RPG.net and theRPGsite as sites establishing notability. None of these sources, and none of the references to policy by the keep side, have been refuted in the Afd or elsewhere. If you are going to argue that the delete was based on policy, you should explain why you think that rather than just pointing to policy. Even discounting RPG.net, what is your basis for discounting the other sources mentioned? Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. There could have been no other outcome of this debate than a close as "delete". The keep !votes were either not based on guidelines, or were refuted (particularly in respect of the reliability of sources). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure. The arguments for keep were based on the rationale that web-based user submitted reviews were sufficient to establish notability, which they are not. Delete was the correct decision. J04n( talk page) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion After discounting the non-policy votes that were advanced by the single-purpose accounts, there is a clear consensus among the established editors that this topic does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard ( talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The constant claim that the only arguments for keep came from single purpose accounts is inflammatory. At least several of the accounts used, including this one, are not new editors and definitely not single purpose accounts. I'd also invite you to read the policy again regarding such accounts, as well as editors who come to discussions for a " cause." You might notice that, despite assertions here to the contrary, even if such accusations are true (they aren't here), the arguments are not supposed to be discounted on their face, although they might be met with more scrutiny, but rather should be evaluated just as anyone else's are, on the basis of their arguments. The arguments for keeping the article cited policy and explained why the relevant policy applies. I can't say the same for the delete side, and in any case the policy arguments and citations (other than one citation) were never met with rebuttal. So is there a point besides repeating arguments which have already been shown to be false (claims of SPAs, one source, and no policy cited)? Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 15:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (delete). Email delete content to anyone interested, and refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • endorse Web sources of this type can in exceptional cases be reliable, but there was no adequate attempt to establish them as being reliable. Reasonable discussion, and the closer did right to disregard the arguments which do not make sense in the context of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Actually we did provide some arguments, based on the Wikipedia article on RPG.net and thus the sources it points to, on why the site might be used to establish notability, being an authoritative source in its genre. We also pointed to Wikipedia policy regarding this, as well as the fact that it's being used to establish notability in other articles in this genre. We also submitted many other sources for review, none of which have been addressed. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 15:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse no reasonable chance this could have been closed any other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Generally, I find Juliancolton's closes highly accurate, and I understand why he closed this debate in this way.

    There is, however, a real discussion to be had over whether the debate itself was defective. Quite arguably, an rpg.net review is a reliable source. (Disclosure: I'm a registered member of that site and have, in the past, used it quite heavily.) I think that issue is not clear at all, and (just from memory) I suspect there may have been AfDs in the past wherein rpg.net was treated as reliable. Personally, I think rpg.net reviews do seem to be independent and tolerably trustworthy.

    I think there's a little more to this than the very clear-cut aspects that are obvious to anyone at first glance, and maybe it's worth asking the Wikiproject on RPGs for a view?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 12:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment You are doing it again, speaking with acronyms and citing policies as Truth that cannot be denied, yet you seemingly do not apply them equally and/or fairly because a lot of other pages on similar subjects are listed on your site and they are not up for deletion as evidenced by some comments made even here about valid sources (and please dont tell me i'm not allowed to invoke other pages, i've seen the note, as well as the assume good faith bit). From an outside view like mine, it looks like everything is written in favor of the editors and that you are not even trying to save anything that doesn't fit into a neat prepackaged form : doesn't meet established parameters, delete, doesn't meet established parameters, delete... its like trying to have a discussion with a computer.

Anyway, not that it will change anything since the decision is already made, but since you're so kind to put policies and guidelines as Truths, i have been told that arguments based on obscurity and personal dislike are not valid (WP:Obscure, WP:idontlikeit ?), yet seemed to be the basis for some of the first deletion posts, and that one of the poster actually put the article back on deletion after it has passed deletion review, which is not allowed (WP:Disruption ?). Furthermore, note that against the endorse arguments stated above, even if some of the arguments for saving the article weren't policy/guidelines based (not everybody in the world speaks WP), the notability/reliability of sources were indeed refuted (you just don't agree with them), the notability issue wasn't just limited to rpg.net (i have stated that a number of web sites, around 4 000, list the game in a google search) and that an alternative was given to keep the article (Merge/Transfer) but wasn't even considered (deletion was of course the only reasonable outcome).

As a last observation, if you want to keep the elite only status you apparently want for WP, please verify beforehand that an article meet your WP:severe and WP:unclear guidelines by having it submitted to a review board of editors, instead of allowing anybody to write anything and then come out of the blue, sometimes years after its written, telling them they do not meet your criterias, but can't tell them what to do to meet them (but feel free to browse through tens of pages of policies to try to find out why we did). That will save you and us a lot of grief (remember WP:dramafreezone ;) --Gebeji 74.58.215.192 ( talk) 19:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Dissent: I'm not a single-purpose account, nor a WikiLawyer. I strongly disagree with the claims that a consensus existed or that no other outcome was reasonable. In media in which electronic journals are the primary or sole publications -- and this happens to be the case for indie gaming -- authoritative Web sources can be significant. Worse, the level of discourse here and in the closing statement treats those who advocated Keep or Merge outcomes as dishonest or idiotic; this tends toward invicility. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually, claiming that the argument was that these people are "dishonest or idiotic" is itself highly uncivil. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
And that coming from the one who started it all... we already know where you stand, and by looking at your own talk page with the big warning about harassment on top, you certainly seems to know how to make friends, and those two bits taken from that page speaks for themselves : «Get the required number of reliable sources to demonstrate notability and you'll be fine. If you can't then I guess it isn't notable for the non-cognoscenti on Wikipedia.»« I've blocked you for 1 week following continued disruptive editing against consensus. » WP:evidence ? ;) --Gebeji 74.58.215.192 ( talk) 03:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Maybe, but the proof is in the pudding. Both on the Afd and here the claims of WP:SPA and WP:MEAT have been made as reasons to ignore the arguments to keep, in place of rebuttal. That's not very civil, and neither is claiming otherwise when called on it. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 16:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. About as straightforward as it gets. Tim Song ( talk) 10:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Dissent First of all, the argument did not center on "one website" being a reliable source. The Keep arguments referenced a number of different websites. Second of all, the claim that the keep arguments came from single purpose accounts is both inflammatory and untrue, besides being inconsistent with WP:FAITH. Third, neither the decision to close based on consensus to delete nor the initial call to delete were based in policy, as the first gave no reasons at all and the second gave a reason that was untrue (that M&M was only discussed on one site). If numerous sites can be cited, the claim that only one site exists cannot continue to be upheld ignoring the evidence. Fourth, the arguments to keep indeed were both rooted in and quoted policy, for instance pointing out that WP:OBSCURE is not a reason for deletion (the source of several delete arguments), that because the content referenced is an ebook WP:WEB applies, such that coverage on websites counts toward notability. The web coverage (again, as shown in referenced links in the keep arguments), was not limited to user-submitted forum posts or blogs, but included articles on .edu sites and sites for RPG conventions.
    • As to the review sites which were argued as not being suitable to prove notability, they are considered suitable for that purpose for numerous other articles on Wikipedia in the genre within which this falls; WP:OTHERSTUFF, while clearly stating that the existence of other articles is not in itself an argument to keep, specifically states that articles on the same subject are. In this case the subject is indie RPGs, and there are numerous examples, besides the fact that the sources used for establishing notability for this article are themselves not only considered notable for the purposes of including articles about them in Wikipedia, and that they are considered authoritative in the area of indie RPGs and were used to establish notability of other indie RPGs which lacked the extensive coverage on additional websites that M&M has (again, referenced in the keep comments). There is also a claim on the delete side of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, which is repeated here. If the sources are supposed to be unencyclopedic there is a burden to explain why.
    • If I am not mistaken in my reading of the logs, this article was already put up for deletion, deleted, and then revived due to deletion review before being proposed for deletion again right after it was revived; this would beg the question of why an article which was brought back by deletion review could reasonably be immediately proposed for deletion.
    • Now back to the most contentious of the sites used as evidence of notability, RPG.net. The site is, as described in its article (and quoted in the keep discussions), "the second largest roleplaying forum, after Wizards of the Coast." There are user-submitted reviews on there, but the reviews for M&M on the site were not done by people who were associated with M&M (which would be the only legitimate reason to discount them as sources). The purpose of RPG.net is to provide reviews of RPGs, which are necessarily user-submitted, and the site is considered authoritative in the area of indie RPGs. The site not having its own in-house reviewers for games should not, IMHO, be used against the reliability and verifiability of the reviews; this is the mechanic the site uses to get reviews of otherwise obscure games, and is the same method used for Wikipedia.
    • The fact the very terse arguments for deletion of this article are demonstrably false (demonstrated in the arguments to keep, with sources and references to policy and web articles), as well as the arguments here, which repeat the arguments for deletion with no reference to the previous rebuttals and, again, very terse and vague arguments with no reference or sources, again demonstrably false (with references to this fact) would seem, in my opinion, not only to point to the weakness of the arguments to delete and uphold deletion but to effectively so refute them as to render them null and void. If the deleters wish to continue to support their assertion in the face of rebuttal and evidence, they should be required to respond to said rebuttals and provide their own evidence. Failure to do so would seem to concede the battle. Continuing to repeat previous arguments which do not explain themselves (simply saying things like that the article is not notable or encyclopedia without expounding as to why or explaining objections in any detail) doesn't seem to me to be a valid method for debate. Requiring standards of notability which do not follow the relevant Wikipedia policy, as cited, besides requiring at the very least some explanation for such deviation, would at the very least not in itself be following policy.
    • One side note: I do not think it was right that arguments to keep were edited afterwards by editors supporting deletion. In at least one case, the invalid, incorrect assertion that headcount was relevant and thus the editing justified in order to prevent double voting was cited as justification for the edits. The fact this assertion was made points to a misunderstanding of policy (beside the other misunderstandings of policy enumerated here and on the Afd page), and the fact the Afd close does not cite reasons but simply claims consensus makes me worry that the page was wrongly interpreted via headcount instead of on the merits of the arguments provided (especially since, as noted before, the arguments to keep were not rebutted by those proposing deletion). This may not be the case, but I would like at least to see some explanation why it is not.
    • Ultimately some explanation of why this article's subject does not conform to the requirements of WP:WEB is deserved, and if it cannot be successfully made, the deletion should be overturned again. I would look forward to at least seeing some arguments to delete that attempt rebuttal of the arguments to keep, if they can indeed be made in the face of the evidence for the arguments to keep. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 11:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Just so it is not missed; we did not repeat the arguments to keep here in the name of not simply repeating previous arguments, but they should be consulted for reference here. I would also call upon whoever reviews this deletion review to remember than neither Afd nor Delrev are votes; Wikipedia policy requires that the merits of the arguments be weighed. Arguments like "it's straighforward", It's not notable, it's not encyclopedic, and arguments which link to policy without expounding on any argument or explaining the conclusion are specifically listed as not valid arguments according to wikipedia policy and common sense. If the sources are questionable there should be an explanation as to why an editor thinks this is true, and they should address all the sources and arguments rather than just relying on attacking one. In my opinion the editors arguing for deletion have not addressed the arguments given by the other side, and have not given any evidence for their assertions or explanations for their views. The keep side has refuted every argument given by the deletes, with reference to sources both in references and in wikipedia policy. For the delete side to simply continue to repeat their assertions with no explanation, especially when their claims have been demonstrated as false (e.g. "it's only on one website"), does not seem to be productive, and if this is all they can muster for argument any reasonable person should conclude that they have lost. I would again point out that for this genre of article the most contentious source quoted, and the only one those arguing for delete have referenced at all, is considered valid both as a source and for the purposes of establishing notability for a number of other wikipedia articles in this genre (Indie RPGs). I must also point out that a number of other sources were referenced by the arguments to keep, none of which were referred to or refuted by those arguing to delete. Therefore, again, the argument that "debeate centered on whether one website was notable" is demonstrably false. Other sources and references to Wikipedia policy were made, and the delete votes had no answer at all for these arguments. Even here, they have not referenced them, but repeated past arguments which have been shown to be invalid. I hope that whoever reviews this keeps these facts in mind. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 03:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Upon suggestion of others I have brought this discussion to the attention of WikiProject Role-playing games. I would also call attention to that wikiproject's page discussing what makes an RPG notable. The sources that were presented for notability of this article were both independant and verifiable. No argument has even been attempted as to how Wikipedia policy impeaches the credibility of the sources in question. This is telling in my opinion. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • WikiProjects are not entitled to set lower notability guidelines for articles within their purview (or any articles at all, for that matter). Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Have you read the notability guidelines they list? They don't set a lower bar for notability; they just have some further information on establishing it. I only referred to them because they reiterate wikipedia policies for notability I have already linked (which have remained unanswered). Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Standard AFD procedure is that the "votes" of new and unregistered users, or users who have been specifically canvassed for their point of view, are given less weight. This was followed correctly. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Where are you getting this from? As I have pointed out many times, according to Wikipedia policy Afds are not votes. I have linked that policy every time. Please review the policy again. The outcome of Afd is decided by the arguments presented, not headcount. So posts with no argument at all, whether they come from new or established users, have zero weight. There is no policy in Wikipedia to ignore the arguments of new users (and in any event the arguments for keep, despite unfair accusations, did not come from new users or single purpose accounts (hint: I am far from a new user, and certainly not an SPA). If arguments for keep were discounted altogether because of this, not only is it an unjustified reason, not grounded in Wikipedia policy, but unfair on its face. The fact that the delete side repeatedly claims that this is a vote, and gives posts with no argument other than a vote for deletion, points to a misunderstanding of policy. The decision to keep or delete an article is supposed to be grounded in policy. The only reference to discounting new users in an Afd discussion is when they have no arguments (in which case any user is discounted) or when they make arguments in bad faith. They are not supposed to be discounted out of hand because " they are new to Wikipedia." All that aside, do you even have a response to my arguments? Have you noticed the links to appropriate policy in them? Have you read those policies? Does the delete side have any arguments that are grounded in policy, and are not these simply inflammatory arguments involving SPAs and such which are not valid arguments for Afds or DelRevs? If you look at my posts, I pointed out that the notability guideline for this sort of article is WP:WEB. I have shown numerous sources, all linked in my arguments, for consideration on that score. I have seen no rebuttal to any of my arguments here or in the Afd. If the decision to delete is to be sustained, there should at least be some argument for the deletion besides what has been so far demonstrated to be false. The fact that our arguments have been misrepresented by the other side makes me think they haven't been read, much less processed. I would invite you to do both, because I would like at least to see some rebuttal of our arguments rather than a simple wave of the hand. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Stifle has it right, Rifter. The arguments of new or canvassed users are routinely dismissed. The term "!vote" comes from the realization that this is not a vote (the ! is a computer programming symbol for "not"). That said, you might want to tone down your own rhetoric. Long, repetitive statements like this one tend to come off as a rant. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I'm not a new or canvassed user, and I think it wise to pay due regard to all sound opinions, whether new or hypothetically canvassed. This page is patently unimportant, but procedurally deserves due process and the opinions of its advocated deserve due regard. My own interest originally lay not so much in the page, but in the seeming disregard for arguments that struck me, at least, as not unreasonable. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I know what ! means, and stifle did not use it. I linked to the relevant policies on new and canvassed users. Both explicitly say that they are not to be dismissed out of hand, although you might certainly be circumspect in looking at them. Even the policy you linked to first of all warns against claiming SPA reflexively and does not say that even they are to be ignored out of hand. It may be a practice of many Wikipedians to do it, but that's not grounded in policy. There's a difference between giving something less weight and not even bothering to read or respond to them. In any case, I and at least several of the users who have been on the keep side are emphatically not new or single-purpose. And I'm sorry that my arguments seem repetitive and long, but they are repeated because they are ignored (claims of WP:MEAT, WP:NEWBIES, and "only one source" despite refutation with evidence) and they are long because I am trying to point to all the evidence that I can. Policy is being ignored here, and so is evidence. It was claimed that only one site reviewed M&M, so we produced a number of them. We also included sites like rice.edu. Only one site RPG.net has been attacked by the delete side. Is anyone going to speak to the other sites mentioned or are we stuck repeating the argument that there is only one website used as a source (untrue, even in the original article which linked to several sources, besides the Afd that went into more detail) and that website is suspect, therefore delete? Because if you will look at the discussion, even just under my edits, I cite a lot of sources (including rice.edu and similar), refuting the claim (repeated here) that there was only one site under consideration. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • So a summary of the arguments for deleting as I understand them are:
    • "The arguments to keep only come from single-purpose accounts, so we should ignore them altogether." This is untrue, as it can be shown that the accounts used are not single-purpose, and the repeated assertion of this is not in line with WP:CIVIL. Even if it was true, SPA's arguments might have less weight initially, but their arguments aren't supposed to be completely ignored out of hand. If they make a good argument based in policy those arguments should be considered.
    • "The keep arguments ask for a special exception from WP:N." Also false. We're only asking that the appropriate notability standard be applied, and that is WP:WEB.
    • "The keep arguments cite only one website, which is not a valid source." Also untrue. We have cited numerous websites in the Afd as well as in the original article; it would be nice at least to hear why none of them is acceptable. In any case, even if RPG.net was considered acceptable, one source probably isn't enough to establish notability, and we never suggested it was. I only ask that before we decide to delete these other sources be acknowledged and addressed. The initial delete nomination came with this false claim of "only one website," the delete arguments in the Afd repeated that, and it's being asserted again here in DelRev. We've given links to other sources, so the only conclusion we can draw is that those editors arguing to delete have chosen not to read them. Rifter0x0000 ( talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Steen Christensen – Deletion endorsed. However, consensus in the discussion is that the article may be restored if someone is willing to source it immediately. Please contact myself or another sysop if you wish to have the article undeleted temporarily. – NW ( Talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steen Christensen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was deleted in August 2009 as an attack page. However, the subject of the article, an escaped Danish criminal who shot two police officers in Helsinki, caused wide press coverage in Finland. The article is a direct translation of the original Finnish article, which also includes sources. I think the user who deleted the article had not even heard of the incident but simply saw that the article said that the subject was a bad person, and immediately thought that meant the article had been written as a personal attack. JIP | Talk 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: According to G10, "Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met," so if a sourced article can indeed be created, it should be.-- Milowent ( talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • It was an unsourced biography of a living person that described someone as a bank robber and rapist. If you wish, I shall be happy to userfy the article for you, provided that you add sources fairly quickly. NW ( Talk) 20:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn speedy deletion and add sources. Because this article was a BLP about a criminal, I suppose G10 may have applied fairly (hard to say since I can't see it). However, G10 should generally be applied only when the sole purpose of the page is to disparage. If it was unclear whether the article was disparaging its subject or not, WP:PROD or WP:AfD may have been better options. If and when this article is restored, however, please do source it rigorously to comply with WP:BLP policy and because exceptional claims require exceptional sources. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore (temporarily) and list at AfD where the question of whether the content constitutes "attack" can be debated. I cannot see a cashe version. It does not sound like the content was so offensive as to prevent temporary restoration (whether in mainspace, or userspace as per NW). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore Just needs sources. Optionally list at AfD, but I think the sources will clearly show notability. This was one of the absurd deletions based on merely BLP unsourced without trying to source. The deleting admin would have made it much quicker for everyone to get to a decent article to have done some slight amount of work himself rather than proceed quickly and blindly. Of course, the dozen or so people who worked on the article up to now, would have made it even easier if they had added some sources themselves. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore topic seems reasonable, and I'm perfectly willing to take JIP at his word that the sources in the Finnish version are good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore I think the original G10 deletion was valid, as the article was negative in tone (it accused the subject of several horrendous crimes) and it lacked sources. However if the Finnish sources do support the content of the article then I see no problem with restoring it provided the sources are added promptly. Hut 8.5 20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore provided that the sources are added soon thereafter. Tim Song ( talk) 10:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_21&oldid=1142604842"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE