Manabu Suzuki ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Jclemens said he can't find any sources to confirm his existence, but I managed to [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]...to name but a few. Therefore I say did he really try, did he try hard enough. Donnie Park ( talk) 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I most assuredly did not try at all. Nor did I write that text, for that matter. DRV is not necessary for the restoration of PROD'ed articles. Please review the steps to request undeletion on my talk page, which I assure you are a lot less hassle than a DRV. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• (ec)undelete per WP:REFUND but I think you've misunderstood. The "Can't find any sources to confirm his existence" was the comment of whoever originally proposed the article for deletion, not Jclemens. Reyk _YO! 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

JC, isn't it better to make at least some steps to check the validity of the deletion reasons, rather than not try at all? Isn't that why it takes a human admin to delete expired prods, & not a bot. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

If you review the detailed logs of what happened, one editor tagged for V, another (Phil Bridger) found sources to meet V and added them to the article, but prod-2'ed the article because of his failure to establish notability in that process. Given that we each have a limited time to process each article, would you really have done more beyond what Phil had already done in this case?

The DRV itself is moot, because yes, I will restore the article myself as soon as he actually contacts me and asks for it. Any other admin is free to do so if they just want to close this out, too. But, as of now, the requestor not asked for it to be restored, he's asked for my PROD deletion, itself clearly within process, to be vacated. Jclemens ( talk) 05:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Justin James ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

There is a Major League Baseball pitcher with the name Justin James. Through consensus is has been deemed that Major League Baseball players are inherently notable. Ergo, this player deserves an article. Alex ( talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand that his first match might be against the Yankees tonight. If so, I'll wait until that's the case and unsalt the article. The article was salted to prevent the recreation of a different Justin James. But if he plays MLB, there's no question about it.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I was just going to come here for this. He's notable as he's on the active roster, even if he never plays. I'm putting the article at Justin James (baseball) for now, but it should be moved to Justin James as soon as possible. Thank you. -- Muboshgu ( talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually as I read WP:NSPORT he needs to actually appear in a game as opposed to be on the roster. Nonetheless it's a different Justin James with a genuine prospect of notability, so I've unsalted the title and moved the article into it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Carbonite (polyatomic ion) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was split from Carbonite when I turned it into a disambiguation page, and I think it had at least one cite. Carbonite is a hypothetical polyatomic ion which may not exist, but has been used as an example in areas of theoretical chemistry. It was, ignoring all rules, deleted by DragonflySixtyseven - see [6] - I had no notification, and there was neither a SD template, a PROD or an AFD discussion. The grounds for deletion was "verifiability" which is not a criteria for speedy deletion. I tried to contact Dragonflysixtyseven two days ago, but haven't received a reply. Claritas § 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• (Could have sworn I left this message earlier, but...) Prove there's been theoretical discussion of it and you can have it back. And I apologize for not having responded earlier, but I'm not available on August 31. DS ( talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Check the GoogleScholar search: "Carbonite"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0. "Infrared spectroscopic evidence for the formation of carbonite CO 2 2− ions in CO interaction with basic oxide surfaces" obviously indicates theoretical discussion (though I can't access it) and this paper [7] also indicates that the ion may well exist. Search is complicated by geology papers using Carbonite to mean "Carbonate mineral" or something similar, and there are a few explosives related ones (check out Carbonite (explosive). Claritas § 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Good enough; it's back. DS ( talk) 00:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted as the right outcome, but I refrain from endorsing the out-of-process deletion. Stifle ( talk) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, why was it the "right outcome" ? Claritas § 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn-Verifiability is an issue for the community to decide via AfD, not an admin supervote.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and have the proper AfD debate. Contact WP:Chemistry if you need people to chip in. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Lack of verifiability is not grounds for speedy deletion, and appears inaccurate in terms of the nom's description. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. The deletion was out of process, so I think the best thing to do is treat it more or less as a contested prod. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Request closure as Dragonflysixtyseven has undeleted the article. If anyone would like an AFD debate, feel free, but I think it's fairly likely to survive. Claritas § 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Black hole naming controversies ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Out of process deletion of a well-referenced article on a real topic. Maybe it's not notable, maybe it is, but there was no debate other than a thread on WP:PHYS where people thought this was a stupid controversy, and that "black hole" isn't an offensive term. But idiots exist, and their being offended was covered in several news outlet. There are also controversies in other languages as well (such as French, where some deemed the term too close to anus for their liking). This should be speedily undeleted as this is nowhere near a speedy deletion candidate. The article was proded, then contested, then summarily deleted by User:Kwamikagami for being an "idiotic" article. If you want to delete, have a proper debate about it. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Keep speedy delete - I think this article should have been speedy deleted on the first day it was posted. I will just repeat what I just posted over at wikiproject physics talk:

The title is obviously misleading - it is not about Black Holes at all, or naming black holes. The article is just a venue to stir things up, and a cover to make disparging remarks against certain groups of people. This was hardly a real topic. The subject matter had nothing to do with the title. There was no sources supporting controversial names for black holes. And it had no connection with black holes as astronomical phenomena, Even the WikiProject Astronomy tag on the talk page was misleading. There was no connection to astronomy in this article.---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

And I will repeat my reply. "I'm fully aware of that this has nothing to do with black holes and does not fall within the scope of either WP:PHYS or WP:AST. But that has little relevance on whether the article should exist or not. Bad templates can be removed, and issues with the title can always be fixed via the standard method of page moves." Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - I just want interested parties to know that I actually placed a speedy delete tag on this article as an attack page, it was reverted, and then User:Kwamikagami deleted this page. So, there was somewhat of a basis for this adminstrator to come along and delete the page. I don't know if this is relevant to this discussion, but I thought it neccessary to bring it up. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Whether or not an editor placed a speedy deletion tag on the article has no bearing whatsoever on whether the administrator was right to speedily delete the article. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Undo speedy delete - I don't see anyone being attacked by this article. I see an article about people who felt attacked by a scientific term. I.m.o. there was no reason to delete the article. DVdm ( talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy delete. The article encourages racism. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC). reply

It does nothing like that. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Oh yes it does. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC). reply

• Overturn speedy deletion. I declined Steve's G10 speedy, because this was not an attack page. It did not say anything disparaging; it did not even quote any disparaging remark. It did not "encourage racism". It just described two occasions when people made a fuss because they thought (mistakenly) that a reference to the astronomical concept of a black hole was disparaging to African Americans. The article should probably sent to AfD as non-notable, but it was not speediable. JohnCD ( talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion nothing in the deletion policy supports the deletion of this article in this way. "Idiotic" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The article was not written to disparage or threaten the subject. Other concerns, such as "obviously misleading title", "not a real topic", "encourages racism", or "no sources", even if true, should be discussed at articles for deletion. I'm personally not convinced Wikipedia should have an article on this subject, but that does not mean the article should be speedily deleted. Hut 8.5 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion While I would vote for this to be deleted or perhaps merged into an article with more general scope, I do not think the speedy rationale applies. Take it to AfD and do this thing properly. Icalanise ( talk) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Not covered by any valid criterion for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn-Doesn't meet any speedy criteria. The CSDs are narrowly construed for a reason. Admins don't get to delete any article they don't like.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 21:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn. The deleting administrator has not even attempted to nominate a valid reason for speedy deletion. None exist. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn - per Mkativerata, no valid criteria given for speedy deletion. Claritas § 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn and trout admin. Bring at AfD if needed. -- Cyclopia ^talk 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Hut 8.5. Nothing in policy backs the actions of the deleting admin. -- Falcorian  ^(talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment: If anyone has not read the article, and would like to do so - I just discovered that it is in the "cache" link on the top of the section. Clicking on that link specfically accesses this article. Further comment about the content of the article below:

There is no need to explicitly repeat antisemtic expressions to demonstrate it is an antisemtic expression. All this does is show case a lack of sensitivity. Also, in this context it is merely an opportunity to explcitly repeat a hateful expression, while exploiting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to do so. This is the same as using the Wikipedia site as a platform to promote a single point of view. Also this same process is repeated in the next section by explicitily repeating a disparaging remark derived from a source, about black women. There is no need to explicitly repeat disparaging remarks against black women, in order to demonstrate these are disparaging remarks. Please note that the "W" word is repeated three times within one pargraph of 105 words. Just because these paragraphs are sourced and have citations, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, does not make the content acceptable or appropriate. Also this is far from neutral wording.

I think the goal of this article is to invite, or even inflame conflict. It does not show concern for achieving quality as an encyclopedia article. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not censored and we are not the thought police. If Bob says X, and Bob's saying of X is relevant, then we say that Bob said X, regardless of where people's sensibilities lie. The article is quite neutral in it's presentation of facts, and there's not a hint of support or endorsement of these views by the article. I have a hard time believing you are reading the same article as I am, because it's quite obvious that this is about verifiable "controversies" (of varying notability), and not a platform to invite conflict. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The deletion reason "(Idiotic. This is not a naming controversy for black holes, but rather sensitivity to the word "black" in any form" ) is completely without support in policy. Speedy deletion does not mean, that if an admin finds what he thinks is a bad article he may delete it. Additionally: The article must be considered, not just the tile -- we don't delete article for having poorly-conceived names, but rename them. It is not true that the articles only purpose is to cause conflict, and even if it did, such is not a reason for speedy--the speedy reason that comes closest is G10"Pages that disparage or threaten their subject, or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." This does not seem to do that--I cannot see that any entity is being disparaged. "Encourage racism" is not a reason for speedy either--one editor say it does, another says it does not, and the place to decide the suitability is AfD--in any case if providing NPOV information should have the side effect of encouraging racism by reporting on it, removing it on that grounds violates NOT CENSORED. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per all of the above. SNOW? Jclemens ( talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion no valid reason for speedy deletion. Could be possibly challenged as not notable or maybe even OR synthesis, but the correct place for that discussion is AfD. Gandalf61 ( talk) 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn without prejudice so that a proper Afd can be carried out. JRSpriggs ( talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. None of the content indicates G10. Being about a race-related controversy does not make the article itself inflammatory. Notability should be assessed at AfD. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the outcome, but not the reasoning- I don't agree that the WP:G10 category applied in this case. That said, having had a chance to look at the article now, I just don't see any way on earth it would survive an AFD. All the article does is discuss two seperate incidents, and then try to make a case that its a larger issue, which smacks of WP:SYNTH to me. Perhaps I'm wrong and perhaps it could be salvaged as meaningful content with a merge, but honestly I'm just not seeing how. So even though I think the logic behind the outcome was wrong, I will say that I don't see any point in restoring an article that would more than likely be deleted by AFD anyway. Umbralcorax ( talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and WP:TROUT deleting admin. Not even vaguely a speedy and would seem to meet WP:N though it doesn't meet WP:HOBITTHINKSTHISISAREASONABLEARTICLE _{(good luck with that one)}. Hobit ( talk) 00:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Hobit. Also, Steve Quinn's argument is patent nonsense; he needs to read WP: NOTCENSOR right away. We have an article entirely about the N-word, so saying an article should be deleted because it "contains offensive terms" (or, as Steve Quinn put it, "the W-word"), is ludicrous and contrary to Wiki policy. Stonemason89 ( talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, well there are other issuse about the article that have to be dealt with, after the discussion. Being offended is obviously not a policy or guideline issue. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 07:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn This may well not survive AfD, but there is no justification for Speedy Delete as an "Attack page". The fate of this article needs to be determined by community consensus, not the policy misinterpretations of a lone admin. Alansohn ( talk) 05:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply