Coven (short film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

disruptive comments by user, seems to be carrying on feud with author of the article, also votes for keep outnumbered delete Wiccawikka 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Note - This film was by Arden Wohl and Arden Wohl has been the subject of ten deletions and restoration. Any AfD disruption may be a continuation of the issues over Arden Wohl. -- Jreferee t/ c 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Please note that AFD is not a vote. The closing admin has to weigh all the arguments given in the discussion, and it is within the discretion of that admin to close the AFD against the will of the numerical majority. A ecis ^Brievenbus 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment The AfD was contaminated by a very vocal ed. (apparently a sockpuppet who insisted that "THIS APPEARS TO BE A GLORIFICATION OF WICCA!!!! Although I am not against various religions, Christianity is the main stream religion in North American!! Also upon watching the movie this is PAGONISTIC!!! please for the love of God delete this entry!" Another repeated argument for deletion was that the film-maker was merely a NY socialite. I have no opinion on the film, but the afd should probably be re-started. DGG ( talk) 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment To be fair, that the director is a socialite (the word "merely" did not come into play) was only brought up once—by me—in the context that the articles cited were about her, and only contained trivial mentions of the film. Furthermore, it was the last comment before the AfD was closed so it can't have swayed anyone's (except, possibly, the closing admin) opinion. Precious Roy 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Wiccawikka 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Received coverage in various mainstream magazines. Wiccawikka 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC) — Wiccawikka ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Jreferee t/ c 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I will recuse myself from !voting since I was the nom for this AfD. The editor who attempted to disrupt the AfD ( Gayunicorn—now indefinitely blocked), was in fact a sockpuppet of the article's creator, Tweety21 (also indefinitely blocked). Further, Wikkawicca, who initiated this DRV, is also suspected to be a sockpuppet of Tweety21 (waiting on checkuser results). (See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21 for more history.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the only person suspecting of sock is Roy. An abuse report has been filed. Wiccawikka 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• comment: Precious Roy AGAIN being disruptive and accusing everybody involved in vote of being a "sock puppet". I was told by another user about the following abusive comment left by Precious Roy: he accuses people of being "socks" without conclusive proof, will see admin about this.

Hello m'dear!

"My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie." author: Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. While notability was not established, the disruptive AfD may have turned away users willing to make an argument because they didn't want to get drawn into the fight. Still probably isn't notable, but the massive disruption didn't give this one a fair shake. I don't think all disruptive AfDs should be overturned, but I think this one was to the point that an outsider (such as myself) wouldn't even attempt to make an argument because of the fight going on within the AfD. Smashville 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Sockpuppet update Both Wiccawikka and Buddahelps have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of Tweety21. Precious Roy 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Too bad they were only blocked. If they were banned, we could have immediately closed this DRV. -- Jreferee t/ c 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - The closer interpreted the AfD discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/ c 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, I see nothing wrong with the closure. -- Core desat 03:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

I have a template this image appeared in watchlisted, and I noticed this morning it had been deleted. The nominator for deletion, Bleh999, apparently found a URL pointing to the same photo of American University's library online, probably by doing Google searches on image names. This seemed to indicate to him or her that Tebp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s release of the image into the public domain was invalid. However, following directories upward, I found the site on which the image appears to be maintained by a college librarian in California who was educated at American University. Looking at the uploader's ontribs, most of them seem to be on topics having to do with Californian college libraries and American University. The uploader may not respond to queries, as she has not made an edit in more than a month, but it seems safe to assume (unless we're assuming bad faith beyond all rationality) that the uploader and the person whose site it is on which the picture appears are the same.

The deleting admin wanted more proof that the image's appearance elsewhere wasn't indicative of a copyright violation, but it's hard to prove a negative. Try this for a thought experiment: You upload a photo you've taken to Wikipedia and release it into the public domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose. Someone takes the image that anyone can use for any purpose, and puts it on his or her faculty page at the community college where he or she works, which is allowable under the photo's permissive licensing. Then suppose someone at Wikipedia discovers the photo on that faculty page and decides that, because the image exists somewhere else, it must hav been there first, and thus the uploader must have lied about the copyright status of the image when it was uploaded, and so the image should be deleted. That's a much more far-fetched scenario than to simply assume that the person on whose web page the image in question appears is also the uploader at Wikipedia, but by its logic, the deletion would still probably be invalid.

Merely demonstrating that a free image exists outside Wikipedia should not be sufficient cause to delete it. --Dynaflow babble 22:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment from deleting admin - Image was deleted after being listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 23. Garion96 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The sole comment appearing under its heading there was, this url has same image [1] Bleh999 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC) --Dynaflow babble 23:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I don't know what is considered forensically definitive in these cases, but the Internet Archive may at least tell us something.

• There is one and only one archive instance of the image on Wikipedia, on June 29, 2007 (later instances may have been archived by Alexa but are not released to the Archive immediately).
• The apparently identical image appears on the West Valley College website (faculty page for Maryanne Mills) as early as October 2004 and in December 2006.

This does seem to prove that the image existed on the indicated website for some time prior to upload, but more proof of ownership may be needed, or a formal inquiry regarding rights. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

What I'm saying, though, is that an application of Occam's razor tells me that the uploader appears to be this Maryanne Mills person, judging by a combination of the biographical information on the faculty site, the implicit joint claim on copyright for that photo, the areas of interest indicated by the user's contribs, and the general nature and format of the user's other uploaded photos. In any case, things released into the public domain are supposed to appear freely on the Internet and elsewhere, and nothing says that the initial point of release has to be an upload to Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 00:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I've sent an e-mail to Maryanne Mills asking for her take on this. Stay tuned. --Dynaflow babble 00:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that ideally WP:PUI would be the first place to take this sort of thing, but the outcome would have to be the same -- WP:COPYREQ. If an editor is MIA what else can we do besides contact whatever outside contact? -- Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that PUI would have been the best first stop. However, in this case, it seems the deletion was right, if not totally correct per process. I received an e-mail back from Maryanne Mills, and she says that she is actually using that picture by permission of American University on her website. She was not the uploader after all, and I'm thinking that, whoever the uploader was, his or her other "releases into the public domain" should be carefully audited, if anyone feels up to te task. I rescind my objections to the deletion and request a speedy close. --Dynaflow babble 04:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Would have been? PUI was the first stop, after which the image was deleted. So it was a totally correct deletion per process too. Garion96 (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

So it was. I was trying to get more at the issue of how such things are resolved. I suspect it's pretty much the way it is over at AFD -- "Here's a problem X, anybody motivated to save it?" And nobody was, given the legwork requirement, and now we have our answer, thanks do Dynaflow following through with that legwork. In short I am not now objecting to the closure (not that I ever was explicitly). Repeat call for close of DRV. -- Dhartung | Talk 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The article was speedy deleted per NawlinWiki cause he said is advertising per a person, company, etc. Hi, I am an interactive Spanish journalist. I work in the most important magazine from Advertising in Spain in paper and online (control.es, estrategias.com and interactivadigital.com). NawlinWiki deleted 2 pages we wrote (we are updating and writing the pages belong to advertising and interactive advertising in spain). He said this pages are advertising to people, companies, etc. We can prove they are not, the issue is this people are all live, and not dead, and cause this mister don’t know Spanish Advertising people he delete it. Here are the references belong to this page: (1) interactivadigital.com 1, (2) interactivadigital.com 2, (3) search. (4) joanbaez.com, (5) fbgservices.com, (6) search 2, (7) search 3, (8) search 4, (9) interactivadigital.com 3. This person have more than 40 awards belong to advertising world, personality, etc. We want to understand what wiki think what is a relevant personality in advertising. Thanks for resolve it (I am not sure if this texts comes here, if not, really sorry). -- Interactive agency ( talk · contribs · logs) 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Article seems to have been moved to User:Interactive agency/Sandbox. -- A ecis ^Brievenbus 23:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD - CSD G11 (Blatant advertisement masquerading as an article) did not apply to the deleted version and CSD A7 does not apply since reasonable assertion of importance/significance. The artice did not meet WP:SPEEDY requirements. The speedy deletion should be overturned and the article listed at AfD, particularly since the references likely are in Spanish and AfD provides a five day window for others to locate such references. -- Jreferee t/ c 17:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse userfication. A few more weeks work on the article should substantially improve it so that it can survive AfD. I don;t think that moving it back to projectspace right away is a good idea because it is still no quite ready for prime time and might well be deleted even if further research would show that it is an appropriate topic. Eluchil404 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

This article was tagged as a speedy deletion candidate by User:Tasco 0 as a non-notable artist who doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and subsequently deleted by User:NCurse. I attempted to contact NCurse yesterday, but he hasn't responded yet and his EN Wikipedia editing is kinda sporadic, so I thought I'd just bring this here. Anyways, this musical artist clearly meets WP:MUSIC, as there were five reviews cited in the article from IGN, Collective BBC, two from AMG AMG AMG and one from the online music mag Resident Advisor. I don't know how both the original tagger and admin both missed this. Wickethewok 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Restore - Notability established by the reviews cited; certainly shouldn't have been speedied, at any rate. I will note that User:Tasco 0 has tagged other articles for speedy deletion inappropriately; I recently dealt with him regarding Lil iROCC Williams, and he seemed to have a poor grip on deletion criteria. Chubbles 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I don't see how having some reviews of any kind makes it notable.-- Tasc0 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • See WP:N... reviews are a good way to satisfy the criteria of non-trivial coverage by multiple sources. -- W.marsh 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Tasc0 - The first criterion of WP:MUSIC is It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. Independent reviews by reliable sources would fall under this. Wickethewok 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn clear claims of importance (released records on notable labels). Does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion, and probably meets WP:MUSIC. -- W.marsh 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I agree with W.marsh--and with the wording of WP:CSD and Deletion policy in general: any good faith assertion is enough to pass A7. It is not necessary to show its notable, just to claim it is, to avoid speedy. Disputed notability is tested at AfD. Whether it actually is notable or not is something I do not comment on in this subject area, but that is not the question here. DGG ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment will need to be restored as Ils (producer). Chubbles 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Done. NCurse _work 06:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• As above, the deleting admin restored it. I went ahead and fixed the page history. Wickethewok 06:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Meets notability requirements Pumpkin 17:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• How does it meet notability guidelines exactly? Wickethewok 17:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (adding new references asserting the notability):

• National tour : [2]
• Album certified double gold record : [3]
• Song used as a central element in " Je vais bien, ne t'en fais pas", movie having an article in wikipedia
• more than 1.000.000 streamings on YouTube [4]
• Press articles in mainstream french newspapers ( Le Monde, L'Express, Le Parisien) [5]

Pumpkin 17:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt per gold record certification, which passes WP:MUSIC with flying colors. Chubbles 17:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The article name is protected to prevent creation, though... Pumpkin 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own deletion, no citations provided at any stage. Stifle ( talk) 18:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Citations have now been provided above. Chubbles 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn A7 deletion... deleted versions claimed importance. Lack of citations is not a criteria for speedy deletion. -- W.marsh 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I agree with W.marsh--and with the wording of WP:CSD and Deletion policy in general: any good faith assertion is enough to pass A7. It is not necessary to show its notable, just to claim it is, to avoid speedy. Disputed notability is tested at AfD. DGG ( talk) 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the deletion, per absence of references, but allow the creation of a new article, since the subject is clearly notable. On second thought, overturn. There was an assertion of notability in the article, enough to avoid speedy deletion. Per WP:CSD#A7: "If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." A ecis ^Brievenbus 00:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Undelete - Disputable notability. Appears to be notable based on editors' comments, though I don't know French to be able to read the sources themselves. Can still be AFD'd if people still want to debate whether they meet WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V, or whatever. The article itself wasn't great, but an unsalt is at least in order so that a better one can be written. Wickethewok 05:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• OK, I'm going to restore and AFD it. Stifle ( talk) 17:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

A7/G11'd 3 times and salted. Not sure why it was salted (three's not a ton), but she's got a three paragraph long Allmusic entry, which should more than quell any notability concerns. Deleting admin apparently retired. I would like to have this title unsalted. Chubbles 06:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt - Salt doesn't mean you can't write the article. It only means no admin has to keep deleting a recreated Nikki Hornsby article. Here's what I found. You're welcome to it:

  In the early 1990s, Nikki Hornsby routinely sang at the Alpine Village in Torrance, California. ^[1] In August 1991, country singer Nikki Hornsby and The Rangers band drew the largest crowd of the summer at Redondo Beach's summer Concert in the Park series. ^[2] Nikki Hornsby and The Rangers again played at the Redondo Beach's summer Concert in the Park series in August 1993. ^[3] In August 2001, Nikki Hornsby sang at the Cliffie Stone Memorial Jamboree in Santa Clarita, California as an emerging local talent. ^[4]

  There is some info at Google books. If you follow the Google images, you might find more text material for the article. There is a collection of new items here. She has a good internet presence, so you might find some good information through those links. Good luck. -- Jreferee t/ c 07:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy unsalt reasonable argument given that there's sufficient sources for an article. No reason to prevent re-creation, and deleting admin is inactive as far as I know. -- W.marsh 13:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| MfD)

This MfD debate was speedy closed a few minutes after being opened by After Midnight ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), apparently under the impression that I was requesting a change in policy regarding private saltpages. I actually don't want a change in policy, as I stated in the MfD, my position is that the pages listed are in violation of existing policy - WP:PROTECT and WP:OWN. Request relisting. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist - this is a valid discussion the community needed to have. Shutting the discussion within 18 minutes simply because an admin has an opinion on the outcome is not valid. While I realize administrators are given more leeway over use of speedy closes, WP:CSK makes it pretty clear that this shouldn't have happened. Finally, after all the brouhaha on ANI, I can't believe I'm the first to comment here. The Evil Spartan 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• It should be very clear to even the casual observer that I am making no opinion on the outcome of the discussion. My rationale for closure was that MFD was the incorrect forum. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong endorse - Instead of repeating myself yet again, I will direct interested persons to my comments at these linked threads at my talk page and at ANI -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Absolute Endorse This is not the right way to do this. Navou ^banter 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Mild endorse. Videmus Omnia has a point, but these particular pages are not the question, and so a deletion debate is not useful. The question is does the implicit protection policy give the WP:PT superstructure some special role, or is it merely a centralized listing of individual admin decisions. The problem is that, since PT was originally just something David Levy cooked up one day, and became policy (as everything should) by the gradual acclimation and endorsement of the community rather than by proclamation, its role has never been that clear. But the issue Videmus raises is about the relationship between protection policy and individual cascading pages, not those pages themselves. Chick Bowen 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there's no need for an MFD to go through this. If the community wants to discuss how these pages are to be dealt with, then there are talk pages to discuss how policy can be changed. If there needs to be something in WP:PROTECT that specifically mentions that administrators cannot keep a personal list of cascading protected pages, then that would need to be decided at WT:PROTECT, not at an MFD that is particularly directed at only a handful of pages.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 03:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I understand where you're coming from, but in fact these specific pages are the question here. I don't think we need instruction creep about private saltpages; they already fall under the umbrella of WP:PROTECT and have to comply with that policy. There are many valid uses of private saltpages; for example Riana keeps one dealing with sensitive BLP issues. However, individual private saltpages should be deleted or modified individually on a case-by-case basis if they violate WP:PROTECT or WP:OWN, as would be done with any other userspace material that violates a policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• To have a user subpage deleted because it contains contain inappropriate protection, you first need to have a decision on whether that protection is inappropraite. Decisions over whether a particular protection is appropriate is a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection issue, not a not a user page issue. MfD is not the place to determine whether one or more protections are appropriate. -- Jreferee t/ c 14:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I'm a little lost on your MfD request. You ask to delete Ryulong's user subpages. What may I have on my user page? states "You can use your user page to help you to use Wikipedia more effectively" which is what he apparently is doing. How do Ryulong's user subpages violate WP:PROTECT and WP:OWN? You don't seem to object to the actual list contained on these subpages, but you object to the cascade-protected against creation by specific admins. Does maintaining a list cause cascade-protected against creation of things on that list? If not, then the close was correct and MfD was the improper venue and the speedy close would be justified. -- Jreferee t/ c 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That would be an argument to address in the MfD; this DRV is just about the speedy close. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I reread your MfD request. Basically, it appears you are saying that if WP:DRV agreed to permit recreation of an article but that title was on Ryulong's list, editors would still have to get Ryulong's approval to create that article so long as Ryulong's lists exist. But once we delete Ryulong's user subpages, Ryulong's will no longer hold power over WP:DRV. There are better ways to start a discussion about cascade-protection against creation by specific admins. There is a discussion on the very topic at Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate? -- Jreferee t/ c 03:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Actually that is an old discussion which resulted in the creation of the page proposed for deletion. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• semi-neutral. I don't see why we shouldn't be using MfD for this. For one, we have other methods of protecting titles, if protection is needed. At the same time, I can understand Chick Bowen's point above, and take this as a starting point to look at the situation over-all. Deleting the actual documents or not really isn't the main objective. There might not be any issue here, and I doubt anyone is acting in bad faith, but it's worth looking into. -- Ned Scott 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Per After Midnight's coments below. MfD is not the place to address how Wikipedia:Protection policy and Wikipedia:Protected titles should deal with cascade-protection against creation by specific admins. And if you want to challenge any one of the entries on Ryulong's private saltpages, the place for that is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, not MfD. -- Jreferee t/ c 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Overturn - I think what is throwing everyone was Videmus Omnia MfD nomination. It was not clear. On thinking about it, MfD is the place to address his request. Videmus Omnia desires not only to delete certain user pages but end the practice of privately cascade-protected against creation. The only place that this can be done is MfD. For example, the pages of WP:BJAODN were deleted and BJAODN was ended as an ongoing project. Ending BJAODN as an ongoing project was done at MfD. There are other examples (but none come to mind at the moment). In any event, the suggested venues by the Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin MfD closer will not end the practice of privately cascade-protected against creation as the result of a consensus discussion. If you read over Are admin specific protected title lists appropriate?, you will see that there are at least two sides to the issue held by respected editors. This justifies Videmus Omnia's MfD request. Videmus Omnia desires that to be discussed towards ending the practice of privately cascade-protected against creation and MfD is the place take such action. The speedy close should be overturned, the MfD reopened, and perhaps reworded to clarify the purpose of the MfD (e.g. The purpose of this MfD is to delete all private lists of cascade-protected against creation (where ever they may be located) (or merge them into WP:PT) and to end the practice of admins privately protecting pages against recreation). You might disagree that such action should be taken, but, as Videmus Omnia pointed out above, such discussion should take place at MfD. -- Jreferee t/ c 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Jreferee, I do not think that you are characterizing VO's argument correcty, he is looking for selective deletion, not to end the practice entirely"

  I understand where you're coming from, but in fact these specific pages are the question here. I don't think we need instruction creep about private saltpages; they already fall under the umbrella of WP:PROTECT and have to comply with that policy. There are many valid uses of private saltpages; for example Riana keeps one dealing with sensitive BLP issues. However, individual private saltpages should be deleted or modified individually on a case-by-case basis if they violate WP:PROTECT or WP:OWN, as would be done with any other userspace material that violates a policy. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  -- After Midnight 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and reopen. MFD seems to be the best place for this discussion to happen. In any case, the close was not particularly appropriate. Stifle ( talk) 11:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

MFD is the proper place for large policy discussion? Navou ^banter 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Stifle. Should have been discussed. -- W.marsh 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

What exactly, should have been discussed at MFD? Navou ^banter 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Whether this is appropriate or should have been deleted? -- W.marsh 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why 4 pages have been selected for deletion and not the others. Seems like "MFD setting a precedent" where a wider policy discussion should take place, no? Navou ^banter 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Well... if I nominate one non-notable band article for deletion, must I nominate them all or risk having my nomination closed early as invalid? I don't think your argument exactly fits with basic XFD logic. But if this does set a precedent of sorts, why not? The MFD can be linked to from the places mentioned... it's probably a better place to discuss a set of pages than any of those other areas. -- W.marsh 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't think the set of pages were necessarily the subject of discussion, I think the point of the nomination was to get the opinion on personal saltlists in general, which in this case, a policy discussion may garner wider community input. So I ask, out of respect to the community, that the requester withdraw the nomination, and participate in the polciy discussion DGG linked below. Navou ^banter 21:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Counter-proposal - perhaps we can relist the userpages from the nom, while leaving Wikipedia:Protected titles/Specific Admin out pending the outcome of the policy discussion? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• now under general discussion at [6] DGG ( talk) 21:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment it's probably a debate worth having, whether Mfd is the correct forum or whether the protection policy talk page (as linked by DGG) is the better is now moot because one is closed and the other is now open. I would say this DRV is moot, but if someone needs a !vote from me, I'd prefer the open debate to remain so to the exclusion of the now closed one without prejudice to bringing these up for delete if consensus at the talk page is not to have these sorts of protections - in which case there would likely be a strong case for merging these with the normal protected pages schema rather than delete outright from which chaos may result. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse status quo and defer to the discussion at WT:PROTECT before deciding whether to take these through the deletion process. -- Core desat 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

This is a notable subject -- I did a Wikipedia search for 'axxo' because I heard the term and didn't know what it meant; some Google research turned up the answer in short order, and I decided to write an article about it only to find it locked. Axxo has over 4 million google hits.

If and when the article is unlocked, please let me know on my talk page; I don't intend to keep following up on this request, but I've already started on a new article. Xiaphias 00:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion and continue cascading protection. None of the versions already deleted contain anything establishing notability or verifiability. I've looked around for possible reliable sources and found none. There's a plumbing supply company called Axxo that gets some reliable coverage, but not the movie pirater under discussion. Chick Bowen 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion - The only possible axxo topics that would meet WP:N are AXXO Biopharmaceuticals and axxo design. There is no reliable source material for the distributor of video files on the Internet named aXXo. The 4 million GHits mostly may be of AXXO Biopharmaceuticals and items such as Axxora, Axxos, Axxon, Axxonis, Axxom, Axxor, and Axxoxxica. You can always develop a draft article in your user space and use that in a WP:DRV request to restore the aXXo file. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, I've looked at the deleted content and it's definitely a non-starter. Stifle ( talk) 11:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Speedy was appropriate based on the article contents, and clearly the subject is not yet sufficiently notable. --  Satori Son 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Calques from German ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| CfD)

Urgent need to un-delete due to irresponsible deletion despite highly obvious non-consensus -- Hrödberäht ( gespräch) 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There is a Category:Russian loanwords which contains words borrowed from Russian, which appear in English-language dictionaries. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • There's also a Category:German loanwords parallel to that category. I believe this was the only actual calque category. Chick Bowen 03:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment It's hard to judge how useful this was without seeing the articles which were in the category. Loanwords can be easily defined and referenced, because almost any dictionary says which English words are of German origin. While interesting, calques may be harder to define. If there is a relatively small number, then perhaps they belong in a stand-alone list. — Michael  Z. 2007-09-30 06:04 Z
• Comment - From loanword, a loanword (or loan word) is a word directly taken into one language from another with little or no translation. By contrast, a calque or loan translation is a related concept whereby it is the meaning or idiom that is borrowed rather than the lexical item itself. -- Jreferee t/ c 06:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Took me a while to figure this one out. This is nothing more than the old debate of whether to use a category or list. The deleted category contained words and phrases which have been calqued from German into English. The article Calque contains a list of words and phrases which have been calqued from German into English. An example might help. The English word dollar calques from the German word Thaler. The dollar article addresses this fact through prose. See Dollar#History. There is no additional need to have a category at the bottom of the dollar article that says dollar claques from a German word. And the only information you could obtain from the category was that dollar calqued from a German word. The category would not tell you that the English word dollar calques from the German word Thaler. (As the nominator put it, "does not document how they qualify for inclusion"). The Calque list has all the information needed, is not vague like the category, and keeps the information centralized rather than spread out at the bottom of an article and in a category list. The keep argument at the MfD never addressed the delete's reasoning. The delete's reasoning was sound and unchallenged. The closer interpreted the rough consensus correctly. -- Jreferee t/ c 06:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closing admin. I couldn't say it any better than Jreferee. -- Kbdank71 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. I do not see any benefits from keeping this category which are not already provided by the list mentioned by Jreferee above.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Jreferee said it so well and I agree with his comments here which are similar to (but more eloquent than) my comments at the original CFD debate. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject_ROMacedonia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| MfD)

Background: WP ROMacedonia nominated for deletion by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and then deleted following discussion. I believe the WP and the need for the WP are still valid (i.e., why not have a Macedonian WP?), and that the WP is salvageable through modification of user conduct. Cheers AWN AWN2 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - process was followed exactly and nothing new is stated here; the only people advocating keep were the supposed POV pushers to begin with. Strong Keep and follow up on the disciplinary action against Fut.Perf. who has been abusing his administrator standing to impose 'his way' of looking at things says it all - for daring to put something up for deletion! Everything I've seen in this shows that this page was severely misguided - from comparing this to the Greek Wikiproject, to kicking someone off a wikiproject for refusing to toe the party line. The Evil Spartan 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: it should be clarified that the above criticism can certainly not be directed against AWN2, the original creator of the project and instigator of this review. I, for one, have the fullest respect for his efforts both in creating and defending the project. Also, I'll be the first to support the re-creation of the project as soon as there's a realistic prospect of constructive contributions from new members. When that happens, we can easily undelete most of the old pages to make the startover easier, so they won't be gone to waste. (Do we need to formally confirm this? I guess it was implied in the MfD outcome.) But for the time being, I still think we should give the project a period of rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse deletion - A Wikiproject to coordinate POV-pushing edit wars? A Wikiproject telling an editor to goose step in line with those in power of the Wikiproject? The only place such effort was headed was arbcom. The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Jreferee t/ c 06:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per above. If a slightly calmer WikiProject can be created to replace it, then let them off. Stifle ( talk) 11:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per above. _{El Greco}^{( talk)} 13:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strongly endorse deletion per Jreferee, possibly speedily close this DRV. WikiProjects to promote POV pushing are simply not allowed. This is absolutely not what a WikiProject is for; if it can be determined that scope exists for a project on a related neutral topic, then do that, but not this. -- Core desat 01:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

I am trying to create article on US Petrochemical someone has deleted this page and blocked it. Need assistance. Worldchem

Comment. The previous incarnations were deleted for lack of notability and for being written like spam. As such, restoring any of the old versions would be inappropriate. However, if you could display that this company is notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the company, the protection can be removed and a new article written. Someguy1221 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Suggestion: if you think you can demonstrate notability and verifiability from reliable sources, the best way to proceed is to create an article in userspace (i.e. User:Worldchem/US Petrochemical, then bring that here for a new discussion. If the article was salted because of persistent spamming, you'll find people a lot more cooperative if you present a non-spammish draft for consideration. Checking the comments that on your personal talk page now, I highly recommend that you read the policies and guidelines I linked above before proceeding. Xtifr _tälk 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Subject is notable and contains references AtomicDog1471 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion - no notes by AtomicDoc1471 of what the references are and the AfD was unequivical - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• I think he means the addition of this reference: http://www.gameogre.com/reviewdirectory/reviews/Eternum_Online.php ; however, this mmorpg.com directory entry was already pointed out in the AfD. Marasmusine 16:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no RSs for notability, proper closure. DGG ( talk) 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4 speedy deletion per Peripitus. Stifle ( talk) 11:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and refactor the AfD debate being speedy delete since the AfD debate was only one day and CSD A7 "No reasonable assertion of importance/significance" applies. As far as I can tell, neither Eternum Online nor eternumonline.com have ever been in the mainstream news. Since the AfD discussion was closed only after one day, it is unfair to allow CSD G4 (Recreation of deleted material) apply to this topic. This, this deletion review should be closed to make it clear that CSD G4 does not apply to this topic and/or refactor the AfD debate as being a speedy delete close. -- Jreferee t/ c 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Kent State shootings in popular culture (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Yet another "X in popular Culture" article deleted, in this case one that's actually well written and well sourced. The argument given by the closer, that the list constitutes OR, is a little unprecedented and wasn't discussed as a reason for deletion at all. That a lot of the references were to primary sources may be a valid point, but certainly is not something that could not be fixed if the article was restored. Artw 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment - I knew this might be controversial, since I didn't close it strictly by the numbers. However, AfD is not a majority vote, and closures generally need to be in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Keep !voters didn't put up a strong argument other than WP:ITSSOURCED, and while it was sourced, the sourcing was all primary and wasn't adequate to justify the article's existence, particularly since most of the sourced stuff is already covered in Kent State shootings. Also, note that I closed without prejudice against re-creation - so if anyone wants to rewrite it with reliable secondary sources, they can. Walton ^One 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn closed by personal opinion--should have joined the debate instead. There was at least one secondary source, "Memorialising May 4, 1970 at Kent State University: Reflections on Collective Memory, Public Art and Religious Criticism" by Mark W. Graham Literature and Theology 2006 20(4):424-437; doi:10.1093/litthe/frl042 Abstract DGG ( talk) 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore article. Definitely no consensus to delete. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 05:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. Editors' consensus cannot supersed Wikipedia policy which requires that articles avoid being original research. See the deletion guide for administrators. The guideline also goes on to state, "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." So the question is whether the closing admin concluded that it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy. I'm open to changing my position on seeing discussion on this point. -- Jreferee t/ c 06:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The main keep arguments are "well sourced". Most of the deleters, including myself, said be this could be re-added to Kent State shootings (that's where it was originally taken from), it's OK as a section, not a stand alone article. What's wrong with that? Why bring this to DRV when there appeared to be an alternative? Crazysuit 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Absolutely endorse. The main principle of AFD is that it isn't a vote. Major commendations to Walton One for the sensible closure. Stifle ( talk) 11:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Just because some information can be sourced and could possibly be included in Wikipedia doesn't mean it needs a separate article. There is not enough information to warrant a whole separate article. That said, the info in the Kent State shootings article should be attempted to be turned into prose, to avoid trivia type sections. Wickethewok 16:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and a good closure. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

After reading your WP:RS guideline, I'm not sure about qualifying internet sources (and am certainly not aware of all publications he has appeared in). I know he's been mentioned in 'The Other' newspaper, as well as several university newspapers. But, I don't see how i could possibly 'prove' those since I tried searching for them but couldn't find them. If it's any help, two of the reviewers for Croix (Alec Trelawney and Nicole Wyman) worked for The Other I believe, but I couldn't find anything on them either. Is this absolutely essential? I mean he is fairly well-known *edit* - in modern experimental music circles, maybe something comes up there. Hbartel81 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Is a notable artist, having published two albums and having multiple references throughout the internet, in addition to fan sites in the u.s.a., japan, and the philippines. is there *special* 'criteria' for being included in wikipedia, even if the article is of a notable artist? Hbartel81 18:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Can you please cite some of those references? I can't see any, certainly not any that meet the WP:RS guideline. Endorse speedy deletion without prejudice to sources being found. Stifle ( talk) 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Important/significant does not equal Wikipedia notable. It's all about previously written, verifiable facts. As for qualifying internet sources, if it's on a dead tree, you likely can use it. If it is on a website run by people who also print on dead trees you probably can use it. (e.g., nytimes.com) If the information is somewhere else (usually a blog or the topic's website), it is unlikely to meet WP:RS requirements. If he was fairly well-known, then someone would have already written about him. You might find material in the alternative weekly newspaper near where he lives/is based. Foreign language sources are fine, so long as you are in good standing with Wikipedia and vouch for their content. -- Jreferee t/ c 06:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per Jreferee ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

One book published, another to be published in three weeks time, with extensive media coverage of a newsworthy topic Hew BG 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn having written multiple books with ISBNs, major publishers and a notable co-author is a reasonable claim of importance, so A7 didn't really apply. -- W.marsh 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support W Marsh. To be fair to Pedro, I'm assuming he means Conflict of Interest and that is - ahem - a fair cop. That said, I hope the text of the page is as neutral as possible. The content is also verifiable from the Macmillan Author Page referenced or, indeed, by googling the name. As you say, notability is not an issue here - merely the CoI. If we can agree that the article merits inclusion, then please edit or suggest revisions - it's just the instant deletion (I didn't even have time to add the hangon tag) that seems a touch harsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hew BG ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Apologies - I'm new to this game. Hew BG 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Hew BG was premature in bringing this here but has now contacted me, post listing at DRV (not a problem, of course). On balance I still feel my A7 deletion was justified due to the lack of assertion. However reviewing it the notability is implied by authorship with a notable co-author. I have currently userfied the article and would seek to work with Hew Bg to bring it up to standards and then restore. Is this acceptable to all? Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Saying someone has written a book with a notable publisher is an assertion... CSD doesn't specify all claims must be in sentence form, just that they must be there. The wording is kept very general for a reason. The article as written, in my opinion, stood on its own. -- W.marsh 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm more than happy with Pedro's suggestion. Apologies also for using this forum immediately. As I say, I'm new to wikipedia: I was simply surprised by the speed with which the article was deleted and followed what I could find out about the process from there. To be honest, assertions as to the notability - especially as regards the Leiths Techniques Bible - would have made the conflict of interest worse. I'd be delighted to work with you to improve the article for restore. Hew BG 15:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

W.marsh. No worries, I accept that there is an assertion and I apologise for the speed of deletion. I was too quick. Are you happy to speedy close this DRV? I'd quite like to work with Hew BG to tidy the article prior to restoration (e.g. per WP:MOS and also fixing some broken wikilinks) Pedro :  Chat  15:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to keep this in sandbox until the article of a sufficient standard to be restored. Where and how do we go from here? Presumably we do this in the talk page at the sandbox article? Let me know how you want to progress. Hew BG 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Replied on users talk page - going offline now so apologies for no further input at this time. As discussed will work with user to tidy article and then commit to restore to mainsapce when done. Pedro :  Chat  15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Reason given for deletion is 'lack of notability' of the ad agency HHCL. However, the deleted entry cited articles from major UK media (including the Guardian newspaper and the Financial Times) attesting to the importance of HHCL both culturally and as a business, as well as major articles from the key trade publications relevant to the sector in which HHCL operated. There has been no explanation from the editors involved in the deletion as to why these sources collectively are not considered to confer notability under WP:CORP. Darrellberry 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Trivial to grab random Google News results such as "HHCL, one of the best-known agencies of the 1990s" and "HHCL, one of the most successful ad agencies of the 1990s". Profile here. There are a dozen results in current Google News, a remarkable thing when you consider the agency has been merged and wholly renamed (although how smart it is to get confused with a soccer club, I don't know). There are numerous in-depth Google Books results. Clearly a ball was dropped somewhere. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, no arguments at all given by delete voters to counter the demonstration of notability given by Darrellberry. Kusma ( talk) 11:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Dhartung. Article was a bit awkward and had some spammy overtones, but in this case it was a reason to improve it, not delete it. -- W.marsh 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. DRV is not the place to re-argue the points raised, and the AFD was valid. Stifle ( talk) 19:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my deletion these sources were raised at AFD, considered, and rejected. Carlossuarez46 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Question. Considered at what length? Rejected on what basis? It seems to be the rejection was entirely incorrect. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment The sources were brought to the attention of the debate prior to the deleters delete comment, and you are charitable to suggest that one-line passing references to the company constitutes significant coverage - why bother having WP:CORP since nearly any business could muster a passing reference or two in a reliable source. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the sources were adequate, and apparently not fully taken into account--there were a number of major newspaper stories about the companies work. DGG ( talk) 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, possible relist at editorial discretion. The AfD does not appear to be valid to me, since it was created by Darrellberry (after an AfD tag was placed on the article by Rapido), who wanted to keep the article, apparently by accident--that is, without a full understanding of the way the process normally works. Without a normal nomination message, the AfD is confusing, and I'm not sure it can be considered to be within process. Chick Bowen 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• For the record, to Chick Bowen's point: any action of mine (subsequent to coming back to do some improvements to the content and finding it tagged for Speedy Deletion) which contributed to the deletion of the article, were *completely* accidental. I wasn't aware until his note above that I HAD contributed in any wiki-process sense to the deletion. Mea Culpa! (I'm not commenting here on the merit of the entry itself and its content, which is a matter for others to decide!) Darrellberry 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per Stifle and Carlos ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse per DGG and W.marsh, plus I agree with Chick - the AfD was out of process, and subsequently deletion was both premature and unnecessary. Subject is notable enough to merit an article. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 03:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Center for U.S.-Mexico Immigration Analysis (CUSMIA) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

CUSMIA is a 501 c 3 nonprofit organization which is NOT using Wikipedia for advertising. I relaize that the template use was incorrect, but I would like the content so I can place it correctly. Mcmcmill2 14:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment That page doesn't exist and has no deletion log. Neither does Center_for_U.S.-Mexico_Immigration_Analysis. Got a correct link to the deleted article? MrZaius ^talk 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)/me needs to remember to use the Purge function. MrZaius ^talk 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• The center's home page is [7] There seem to be only 4 or 5 ghits, so I do not see how it would justify an article in any case. DGG ( talk) 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• It was subsequently created but got speedy deleted A7. (by me I must admit). Better someone else considers whether we need this DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion - CSD A7 no reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies. There are no reliable sources independent of CUSMIA that discusses CUSMIA so there seems to be no reason to restore the article. -- Jreferee t/ c 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion as above. Eusebeus 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as blatant advertising/no assertion of importance. Copies of mission statements and official histories are the most basic form of blatant advertising, since that is written for a blatantly promotional purpose. However, these sorts of deletion are without prejudice towards the creation of a new article, preferably one that cites sources and explains importance. -- W.marsh 00:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Call it "promotional" if "advertising" grates, and please understand that non-profits are subject to the same rules as any other entity. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion G11 and/or A7. Carlossuarez46 05:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - This article was recreated within Template:Nonprofit-org-stub and then the template was moved to Center for U.S. - Mexico Immigration Analysis. I cleaned this up, and the article now exists at Center for U.S. - Mexico Immigration Analysis. Looks like this article could now meet CSD criteria. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 13:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse delete per Carlossuarez46. Stifle ( talk) 19:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletionper Stifle and Carlos ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Globe Aware is a 501 c 3 nonprofit organization and it is not listed in Wikipedia. In addition, similar organizations such as Cross Cultural Solutions and Habitat for Humanity are listed. Mcmcmill2 14:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• This was last seen as your user page, since deleted as db-spam. [8] It had one real reference--it was used as an example for the article in Time: [9] . I think that is enough to justify permitting re-creation of the article DGG ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy delete - Plenty of reliable source material for the article going back to July 2004. However, I think I need to see some evidence of a desire to use reliable source material in the article that is independent of Globe Aware. Please prepare a draft article in you user space and then return to WP:DRV. Considerer using information from July 5, 2004 * [10] * [11] * mucho reliable source material * September 9, 2007. -- Jreferee t/ c 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy delete earlier concerns still apply. Eusebeus 22:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy delete no assertion of importance - and speedy deletion does not prohibit re-creation when/if assertion can be made. Carlossuarez46 06:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I can't see what the page used to look like due to the random moving of {{ nonprofit-org-stub}}. Stifle ( talk) 19:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per carlos ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Page recreated on the 20th after new sources became available that make a clearer case for notability and a recent cast announcement takes care of a number of issues with verifiability. Would be helpful to have the talk page restored, as well as the edit history of the article proper. MrZaius ^talk 07:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Pat's_Calculator (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This is a serious article about a popular cartoon on the University of Wisconsin campus, meets all Wikipedia Guidelines, and should not be deleted. Burbenog 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid it didn't come close to meeting Wikipedia's policies. Please read WP:N and WP:V, for starters. Endorse deletion. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think the speedy in tihs case was fully justified. If anyone outside the university writes about it a eliable non-blog source, then perhaps it might be appropriate to have an article. DGG ( talk) 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion It is heartening to see that more people are seeing the wisdom of acknowledging that A7's examples should not considered an exclusive list of A7 targets (cartoons, print and visual media are not given as examples on the list at A7, but this article's subject has no assertion of importance, significance, notability or however one wants phrase it and is properly an A7). Carlossuarez46 06:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It's web content, which is most certainly covered by A7. I checked before chiming in. Your misunderstanding of the CSD is not relevant. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • According to the deleted article that was created later, but you point out another tidbit: one can go beyond the content of the article itself to find out that it may meet a speedy criteria then delete it. Good idea. Carlossuarez46 18:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
      • You mean I did research to see if the article was simply poorly written and could be rewritten to satisfy Wikipedia's policies? Say it ain't so! Perhaps I should be sent to ArbCom for being an editor AND an administrator. Your mischaracterizations of both policy and what I say are becoming tiring. I won't respond any further; if you wish to discuss on my talk page, please feel free. We're disturbing an unrelated DRV. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy, no assertion of notability and no evidence that any outside sources write about this cartoon. Kusma ( talk) 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Deletion was completely valid. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

• Closed as the article deleted the second time had an adequate justification of notability, as agreed below--though it might not at the time have been sufficient to pass AfD. (Now much improved over the original.) The first speedy however was justified, and was not abusive. The second was not abusive either, just not considered carefully before leaving. Restored in the absence of the original admin. DGG ( talk) 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Abusive speedy delete for a sourced article that made clear claims of notability. There was and is no valid reason to delete an article about one of the world's largest travel information and computer reservation system providers, deleted as part of a clear abuse of process by User:JzG, an admin who has repeatedly demonstrated wanton disrespect and disregard for consensus and Wikipedia policy. As it currently stands, this is a perfectly valid article that should exist and should never have been deleted. Alansohn 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I note the ANI thread where Guy explained the deletion. GRBerry 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The ANI thread referenced may excuse JzG's first deletion of the article, on the 7th. The article was created, properly sourced and notability demonstrated, yet was abusively deleted in clear violation of Wikipedia policy on the 18th by User:JzG. There is no excuse for this one. Alansohn 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - For another computer reservations system issue, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Galileo_CRS. -- Jreferee T/ C 21:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment:: This is more of Alansohn's continuing Bad Faith personal attack crusade against Guy. Corvus cornix 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No. This is a direct comment specific to an abusive deletion of an article. Does anyone care to defend the speedy deletion, or is this just a personal attack? Alansohn 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: the article was undeleted by DGG ( talk · contribs), with the notice "restored as explained by me at DRV." I can't find the explanation anywhere on DRV though. A ecis ^Brievenbus 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • There is a bit of an explanation at User talk:GRBerry#Travelport. I encouraged him to actually explain here while closing this. GRBerry 01:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Hey. Alansohn. This isn't an admin RfC, and it's certainly not the complaints department. Leave your grudge against Guy at home and make your case about the deletion; right now the attacks on Guy are undermining you. Both of the cited references in the article are pretty trivial, and appear to mention Travelport passingly in the context of Orbitz etc... but I don't think the article meets A7, and AfD might be more appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Although the article is very poorly sourced for a topic that generates over 2000 Google News Archive results, it does have a clear assertion of notability suggesting that WP:CORP is easily attained. Guy certainly doesn't like spam, but ownership of a top reservations website seems to nix A7 criteria. The DRV nom is basically a personal attack, though, and is not constructive.-- Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist - at present, I'm not satisfied that there is sourced claim of notability in the article, however, I'm sure one can be found so best off taking this to AfD. Original speedy by Guy was certainly correct - the artilce made no claims whatsoever so I would suggest Alansohn stops this harassment immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I've added a few claims of notability into the article with some refs - although the article is still poor, it's better than it was and passes WP:CORP. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Marwan al-Shehhi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

With due respect to the deciding administrator, whom I contacted several days ago but did not receive a response despite his editing elsewhere on WP, I believe the process of deletion was wrong. The AFD sat for many days with admins deciding on most of the other ones but unable to decide on this one. Then the admin belittled the AFD calling it "groundless" which is not true as groundless AFD are speedly deleted and certainly would be one of the fastest ones to be deleted after the suggested 5 days, not left days untouched by other admin because of the difficulty in deciding. In terms of lack of merit, Marwan al-Shehhi should be deleted because he is non-notable and only was a faceless hijacker. We do not have articles on every solider that fought in a certain battle. There are no articles in the news about Marwan, only the incident and the ringleaders (Atta and Osama bin Laden). I can see Atta being notable for an article but not Marwan. Even less notable is Ahmed al-Ghamdi. There should be no question that he is redirected to the event article. WP:BLP1E gives us guidance; cover the event, not the person. Please do not shoot the messenger (me). I am FOR keeping articles on Atta and binLaden despite the killings on their hands. Also note that unlike the nominator, I am not in favor of deletion. Rather, I am in favor of merge and redirect which seems consistent with WP policy. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support keep Single events can make someone notable. This is a clear example of that--about as clear an example as we are likely to find., given that there is quite apparently enough material for a bio, the article should be kept on the merits. If there was nothing much known about him, then it might be reason for a redirect. DGG ( talk) 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep closure. The closer correctly determined consensus on the AfD. Some people really do attain notability for a single event so there is no overriding policy reason to delete. A merge might be reasonable but that doesn't require AfD or DRV. Eluchil404 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

In accordance with Eluchi1404 (A merge might be reasonable...doesn't require DRV), I wish to withdraw this deletion review. If those who responded here, your advice recommended about Lansing Bennett. That person has more bio than Marwan (see DGG's comments above) yet was deleted (redirected). Mrs.EasterBunny 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse since the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. A single event can generate enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic to develop an attributable article on the topic suc that the topic can meet general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee T/ C 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep. There is no procedural issue raised by the DRV request, only subjective interpretations of notability that are not grounded in policy. Alas, we live in a world where people who have "killings on their hands" are notable and indeed numerous, and as an encyclopedia we reflect that society. I don't like him is a poor rationale for deletion. -- Dhartung | Talk 11:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, there is procedural issues. Saying "groundless AFD" is an indication of inadequate consideration and railroading considering that many other adminis skipped over this more difficult AFD even after the suggested 5 days.

Furthermore, I don't involve WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was contending insufficient notability that should cause redirect, not delete. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, closing admin correctly determined consensus. No one was arguing for deletion except the nominator, and almost everyone agreed that the article should be kept, citing relevant policies and guidelines. While the argument for deletion was valid, it didn't gain a consensus. Walton ^One 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Error in the above comment. Only one was arguing for deletion. I was arguing for merge and redirect, not keep. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

DRV withdrawn, see my comments above. Thank you for your time and ideas. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The Platinum Brothers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The reasons given for deletion were not substantial. A quick check of any music CD site would have turned up references to The Platinum Brothers, not just a myspace page. Sites such as Charlie, Last Name Wilson CD reference them on the album by Charlie Wilson which has sold well over 300,000 copies. I am also trying to update this page because there is more info available on them. They are featured on two new albums, "Brave" by Sony Recording Artist Jennifer Lopez on October 9th and "Back Of My Lac" by Capitol Records Recoridng Artist J. Holiday on October 2nd. -- Superkat2 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• The AfD closure was correct, but it was over 7 months ago. You have rewritten a new version of the article, which is perfectly fine if reliable sources showing notability can be provided now. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Restore - since substantial new information presented for the article. The Platinum Brothers seem to be growing and likely to generate more reliable source material for the article. -- Jreferee t/ c 00:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Predicting reliable sources in the future is not a good argument. It's like saying "this band is up and coming, so they deserve a Wikipedia page now." We don't predict the future about sources because lots of good bands fizzle out, as with anything.-- Chaser - T 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment it seems to have been restored anyway. ~ user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion (no prejudice) sources? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep restored The sources indicate the band is weakly notable now for its contributions to more notable projects. I still don't see how it meets WP:MUSIC, but the article's in much better shape for notability and other concerns than when it was deleted.-- Chaser - T 05:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Please undelete this uncontested prod. Alphonze 04:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:Rasta-stub (  | [[Talk:Template:Rasta-stub|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| SfD)

This was discussed months ago without resolution and then the deletion months later was slipped through with no discussion and only one pro-delete, and that personm knew their was oposition but decided not to let anyone know, just a back door deletion with no consensus, IMO. I had been expecting the fd for weeks after the discussion and then copncluded it wasnt goinmg to be deleted. it appears that knowing there was opposition to deleting this stub from 2 users that siomeone decided to wait tand thus disable the opposition in an improper way. I have no idea who the closing admin was, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, SqueakBox 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment from SfD closer - I closed resolution on the 20th ( diff). The standard wait time for closure is 7 days, which would have been on the 19th. There was plenty of time for people to voice their opinions in the discussion. There was only one vote: to delete, so that's what I did. From a closing perspective, I can only look at what's in the SFD discussion. I didn't see any indication that anyone wanted it kept, so I deleted it. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

More information about rasta-stub here. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. The stub type was a constant problem for stub sorting, due to its ambiguous naming, ill-defined scope, and paucity of use. Those articles which did use it were not best suited to using it - most of them had little to do with rastafarianism per se, but were, rather, reggae musicians (a reggae-stub is in the process of being created to replace this template on those articles, as it better suits their subject). The name of the template was also decidedly ambiguous, as "rasta" was intended to be an abbreviation for "Rastafarianism", whereas the term "A rasta" usually means a rastafarian - and as such, this was easily perceived as a variety of biography stub. What's more, stub catgeories are only created where there is a distinct need for them and a population of existing stubs that is sufficient to warrant a split of the stub ype from other stub types - as listed on WP:STUB and elsewhere, this is taken as being sixty existing stubs. The entirety of Category:Rastafari only contains 53 articles, many of which are far beyond stub length. As such, there is no usrful purpose for this stub type at present. Once there are sixty stubs about the rastafarian movement (not about the related but different subject of reggae music), a proposal to re-create this stub type would be reasonable. But at present, even if correctly named and scoped it would be of little use to editors and actually creates more work both in terms of extra searching by editors and extra sorting by stub sorters. As for the accusation that it was somehow deliberately slipped through so that no-one would notice, only stubs which are clearly impractical or are problematic in other ways are taken quickly to SFD. It is standard practice for stubs listed on the Stub sorting project "discoveries" page to remain there for some time if it is unclear whether the discoveries will be useful or not. If, after some months, they are found to be of use, they are accepted and added to the canonical list of stub types. If they are found to be more trouble than use, they are then nominated for deletion. This is what happened in this case. As to "not letting anyone know", a deletion process notice was placed on the stub type when it was brought up at SFD - which again is standard practice. Grutness... wha? 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Rasta used as an abbreviation of Rastafaraianism. What utter tripe? Such a statement merely proves your profound and complete ignorance of the subject of Rastafari, Grutness, but yes it should have been called a Rastafari movement stub and that would have been easily fixed. I dispute there is even one article where the stub was inappropriately used, it was not just used for reggae musicians and reggae is a far larger genre than Rastafari (the Rastafari-based musicinas being a sub-genre of reggae, often called roots reggae). The way you outline the porcess, Grutness, makes it extremel;y difficult for those outside the stub crew to be able to participate in these debates, and one has to wonder if that is deliberate, SqueakBox 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for you lovely comments, SqueakBox. I, at least, made an attempt to play the ball, not the man. To comment on your relevant points: 1) the stub type was used inapproriately on a majority of the articles - when first checking to see whether the stub type was worthwhile I went through quite a large number of them, and would say that close to 75% of the articles were not appropriate for a rasta-stub; 2) the process, as I outline it, is very straightforward - a stub type is proposed, and then debated. You don't need to be a member of the stub-sorting wikiproject to do either of those actions, and in fact a large proportion of those who propose and comment on stub types are not connected with the project. If a stub type is nominated for deletion, then anyone may comment on that nomination, in exactly the same way as anyone can at the other XfD processes. You chose to do neither, despite the fact that it was perfectly easy for you to do so. Grutness... wha? 00:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• A quick glance at my contribs during the time I was sorting the rasta articles pulls up Judy Mowatt. There is not one singlea vague mention of the Rastafari movement in the form of Haile Selassie, no Rastafari category, yet this diff shows that rasta-stub was placed on the article by SqueakBox. And I only got through 3 articles, out of the 58 or so I sorted. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• There may be an issue with the article then but there is no question she was a Rastafari, see here, SqueakBox 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• And actually even before I ref'd her as being a former Rastafari there was a piece in the article about the alleged death of Selassie I in Aug 75 so I strongly disagree with your judgement that the rasta stub was inappropriate in this or any other article I placed it in, SqueakBox 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Of course, once I point out an article that only vageuly mentions the Rastafari movement, then you edit the article to include more information... That's not really a good way to go about things. The point of stub types is to find 60 existing articles that would warrant the stub type. You shouldn't go around adjusting articles so that your stub type can stay. And like I said on your talk page, just because a person is a Rastafari doesn't mean that the article should use rasta-stub. We don't put {{ Christianity-stub}} on every article about a person who might happen to be a Christan. Once you can identify 60 existing articles about the Rastafari movement itself, then a rasta-stub would be justified. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well obviously I improve the article because I am able to and using this [process to improve articles has to be a fgood thing but my point is that this article actually specifrically discussed Rastafari in a better way that many others in the Rasta stub collection, and linked to Selassie I (Rasta God) so I stand by my judgement that you chose a bad example, and my additions (especially re her controversial claims re Bob Marley) would make it more appropriate right now and one of the most appropriate articles in which to have the Rasta stub. I have bookm,arked your statement anyway, if I can get 60 articles together that would justify the rasta-stub I'll use your statement to justify re-creating the stub (and I'll have a good look to see hopw the Christianity stub is used). For me stubs should be used in areas where the project has poor coverage (ie needs expanding) and I would certainly say that of our coverage of Rastafari generally, SqueakBox 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. The "grounds for reversal" here seem to rely on a huge assumption of bad faith (which seems especially egregious in this instance, given that the nominator explicitly stated that she was expressing no "!vote" -- which suggests to me strongly that there's not much prospect of an exercise in !vote-stacking, unless it's of an especially subliminal or deletion-judo sort), and amount to an apparent sense of entitlement that all potential deletion-opposers would all be actively canvassed to participate in the SFD discussion. Something being tagged for 12 days is not "back door deletion", it's at the very least evidence that no one both noticed and cared for (at least) that long. On the substantiative merits of deletion, I'd tend to agree with Grutness. Alai 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - The closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Five editors participated in the January 2007 discussion and two editors participated in the September 2007 SfD. The SfD was open for 7 1/2 days. I do not see any bad faith in the September 2007 SfD and the DRV nominator has not evidenced any. It might help to review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- Jreferee T/ C 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Jreferee states it very well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Closing administrator did not interpret the debate, he made his own decision about the article and used a rationale for keeping not presented by anyone in the debate. The opinion of those commenting in the debate were clearly in favour of deletion. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 11:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I am the closing admin. I have moved commentary made here to the talk page to reduce impact on the ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 12:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse decision - it just fits into admin discretion, I think, and he did give a valid rationale for its keeping; however, I don't believe the subject is notable enough, so i've renominated the article for AFD (i.e. this is from a process standpoint). Will ^{( talk)} 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Should/can this be speedy closed then? It seems the most sensible course of action. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

USA BEST REALTY (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

factual Ariverawpb 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Please review the deletion of this article. I feel that the moderator was unfair in his/her actions since many other of the companies under the Wiki heading "List of Franchises" have an informational link. No advertisement is implied here, it is just a one-sentence bit of information on a viable franchise. Thank you for your review Ariverawpb 04:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. All of the versions of this article (which has been deleted by more than one administrator), meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. In particular G11 (as blatant advertising) and/or A7 (company with no assertion of notability). To be acceptable a new version should be based on reliable sources independent of the company itself and not a restatement of its press materials or a sub-stub that is no more informative than an entry in a telephone directory. Eluchil404 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I disagree. If this is the case, than the entire "list of franchised companies should be deleted off of your site. Realtor.com, RISMedia, and Isucceed.com all show USA BEST REALTY as being a notable franchise. Even though there are reliable sources showing that it is, the fact is that the one-line informational sentence regarding a "true" real estate franchise shows absolutely no form of advertising - just factual truth. WILL SOMEBODY FAIR PLEASE STEP IN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariverawpb ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I understand you care about the article, and that's good. But please remain civil and assume good faith. Please don't shout for "SOMEBODY FAIR" to "PLEASE STEP IN". A ecis ^Brievenbus 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I apologize for, first of all, shouting and also for giving NawlinWiki a hard time. I obviously have a hard time controlling myself when I feel that the principle is at question. NawlinWiki you have quite a task in store for you in monitoring all of the posts that are submitted and I apologize for questioning both your knowledge of Wikipedia laws and your past actions in regards to your articles in which you have established. I will not shout or throw pointed words at anyone anymore in Wikipedia. I know that all of you have to monitor thousands of posts per day and keeping up with trivial requests from me should be an afterthought. The fact is USA Best Realty is a viable franchise that is listed under Wikipedia's "List of Franchises" and all I am asking to be allowed to do is to submit unbiased, factual information and I would appreciate you allowing me to do this since other franchise businesses were allowed to do it. Thanks all of you for listening to me. -- Ariverawpb 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Could you point to the articles on the sites you mentioned? Articles on Wikipedia are written from reliable sources, otherwise they are considered original research which is not allowed. ColourBurst 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Yes, Thank You, the articles are as follows:

• Training & Business Development: For Sale By Owners: A Rookie’s Best Friend
• FSBO Psychology: Get the Winning Edge

• Thank for your review. -- Ariverawpb 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - There are not enough (I found none) independent (ie third party) reliable published sources on this franchise to write an unbiased encyclopedia article about it. Sorry, Ariverawpb, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a yellow pages or a publishing service. If there are other franchise businesses with articles that likewise lack independent reliable published sources, then they too should be deleted. Can you point them out for us? WAS 4.250 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Nobody said it was a yellow pages - you did! And this is exactly the attitude I am speaking of when I scream moderator abuse. How can one assume good faith when moderators give their personal opinions. You can not find one independent (ie third party) sources and I gave you two. What's the problem here? As far as printing out the other franchise business articles, isn't that your job as a moderator? There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians on this so-called, unbiased encyclopedia. Ariverawpb 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.184.76 ( talk) 00:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - There should be no hypocrisy on this site. What's good for the moderators must be good for the users. Please inspect the following before denying my submission: The person who first denied my submission NawlinWiki who started a page called [#REDIRECT Ice Records] which is a blatant advertisement (according to many of the Wiki moderators - including NawlinWiki) and is NOT supported by viable Third party sources. Why is this allowed? The articles I pointed to in regards to my submission are much more credible in regards to NawlinWiki's submission. I want what is fair and if USA Best Realty has been allowed to appear under the "list of Franchises" by Wikipedia for quite some time now, why isn't a sentence allowed to explain what it is? Please help. -- Ariverawpb 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• If you desire the one sentence, why not just put the one sentence in List of franchises instead of its own article? If the one sentence is in an article of its own, it needs to assert an importance/significance of USA BEST REALTY per CSD A7. An article has additional requirements, many of which cannot be met by one sentence. See Wikipedia's five article standards requirements. -- Jreferee T/ C 07:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Ice Records is owned by Eddy Grant and releases his records, so it's not unreasonable to assume articles by third-party reliable sources (which is why you're not really supposed to point at other articles to defend yours - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for an argument as to why). The sources you have given... well, the first one doesn't mention much about USA BEST REALTY (one sentence), and the second one seems to be by the founder of the company so that's not independent. Could you find more? ColourBurst 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy delete - CSD A7 No reasonable assertion of importance/significance applies. Comment - Wikipedia articles should be based on material in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so that an attributable article may be written on the topic. See General notability guideline. People typically use information from newspaper articles and books for their Wikipedia article. Material published by USA BEST REALTY or published under USA BEST REALTY's control (e.g., press releases) is not independent of USA BEST REALTY. Try building a draft article in your userspace at USA BEST REALTY (draft) using information from newspaper articles, books, etc. Once you feel that you have an article that meets Wikipedia's five article standards requirements, follow the steps to list a new deletion review and request that USA BEST REALTY be restored using your draft article as the material for the USA BEST REALTY Wikipedia article. Best wishes. -- Jreferee T/ C 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Speedy Delete. There are very few articles that meet the speedy delete criteria. This is one of them. Blatant advertising for a company with no third party independent sources cited (and to this point, not able to be found). This is the most clear cut case of what a speedy deletion should be. No assertion of notability, no reliable third party sources and the creator has a conflict of interest. That is textbook DB-ADVERT. Smashville 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Reverting to its former state, somebody is doing company profiling Mion 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Galileo CRS request for restoring, history included. Deleted :11:30, 7 September 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Galileo CRS" ‎ (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising, part of a walled garden all created by the company's employees):User has left S i can't ask the user anymore.I need the article history to see who is rewriting it to such a state and to rewrite it myself or revert it to one of its former states. Mion 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC): The article is about 1 of the 4 major systems in Computer reservations system. Frontrunner : Notification systematic removal of unwanted facts [ [12]] on 19 august, still assume good faith. Mion 17:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC) OK, i have been reading [ [13]] Needahotel.com which states the reason, 4 articles have been subject to spamming including Galileo CRS which was transformed from an article about an CRS to an article about a company. I think the origal article should be undeleted to the state prior to the vandalism, which is also my request now. My blind guess around may 2007. Mion 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC) User:Ryan Postlethwaite dont seem to be around to fix it, somebody else here can help me out ? Mion 21:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Hmm. On the one hand, there is non-spam history in there as you say. On the other hand, there have never been any sources. My preference would be to undelete to user space and allow eventual move to article space after sources have been provided. The earliest edit contains the assertion that Galileo is one of the largest CR systems, an assertion that has never in the history of the article been backed up with a reliable source. Chick Bowen 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Something strange happened, i used to edit about the subject on the NL wikipedia nl:Galileo (computersysteem), i went back to 21 januari 2006, there the interwiki link [14] states : [ [15]], i think that there should have been an article at that time, and i think some history is lost with name changing of the article, but nevermind, despite the shape in which it turns up, when i am finished with it, it should look similar to Amadeus CRS. Mion 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

bon, changing the request to ad the article medio may 2007 to User_talk:Mion. Mion 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Request cancelled, it was shorter to rewrite the article (last time i have been here, for sure) , so here it is : Galileo CRS. Mion 23:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• D'oh. Galileo CRS (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted again by Cryptic ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Having seen the sheer number of Google Scholar hits, I undeleted it and provided one scholarly reference. I'll undelete the rest of the history as well, perhaps there would be something useful also. Can we close this DRV? It's certainly a notable company, and it will take just some effort to write a good article. Duja ► 09:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletes - I was very surprised to find that "Galileo computer reservations system" clearly meets WP:N as there seemed to be endless reliable source material on this reservation system separate from "Galileo International" and "Galileo (whatever)". While I'm on the issue, "Galileo International" and several other "Galileo" based items meet WP:N. In other words, Galileo can end up with several articles on Wikipedia if someone wants to do the work. -- Jreferee T/ C 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Overturn and pursue administrative measures against admin There was and is no valid reason to delete an article about one of the world's largest registration systems, deleted as part of a clear abuse of process by User:JzG, an admin who has repeatedly demonstrated wanton disrespect and disregard for consensus and Wikipedia policy. As it currently stands, this is a perfectly valid article that should exist and should never have been deleted. Alansohn 21:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

File:Bend over boyfriend cover 01.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This image was deleted on the basis that it was used in the article Bend Over Boyfriend which was speedy deleted (see Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Bend_Over_Boyfriend). The image had also been used in Pegging (sexual practice), but was removed fromn there on the basis that Bend Over Begineer has been deleted [16]. As far as I can tell it was not used anywhere else when it was deleted, but clearly fails I5 (unused unfree images) because it had not been tagged for more than 7 days. F Mita 20:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, there's hardly a point in restoring as the image would still not meet WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. Using the cover of the video in an article on the video's subject isn't proper fair use. -- Core desat 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Seeing as the article was kept on AFD, the image should be restored, since it would no longer fail WP:NFCC. -- Core desat 02:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Per Cordesat, should never have been in the pegging article in the first place for copyright reasons. Chick Bowen 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

*Endorse deletion per above. No reason to undelete an image just so we can delete it again when a waiting period expires. Eluchil404 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Since the article has been kept this is probably a valid fair-use image. Eluchil404 07:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note that the DRV for the article closed as overturn speedy and list at AFD. I'd recommend suspending this discussion until the outcome of the AFD is clear. GRBerry 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I thought that too, but there is the argument that restoring this image (if it should be restored) would assist in the review of the article at AfD. -- Jreferee T/ C 19:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I don't really care; it's clear that Bend over Boyfriend is going to be kept at AfD by this point, so there's a place for this image. -- Haemo 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

MediaZone.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I corresponded with Wikipedia editors regarding this article and believed it had met standards but it was deleted following an "Articles for Deletion" discussion that did not appear to have reached a full Delete consensus. In trying to contact the administrator, I learn that the individual is no longer in that position, and according to a final essay, appears to have left with some level of unhappiness(quoting "but seriously I'm being treated like shit here now, so it's time to be to leave.") Perhaps the article -- related to an existing article on its parent company -- Naspers -- did meet the criteria for Deletion, but I am concerned that the administrator who deleted it was angry at Wikipedia and not acting with a clear mind. Thank you for your consideration. JohnRobertCrowley 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as no consensus since, well, there wasn't a consensus. Sources like this, this, and this are perfectly reasonable. The article sounded slightly promotional, but nothing that couldn't be fixed in two minutes while retaining the appropriate factual information. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 00:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn clearly no consensus for delete, and the closing admin gave no rationale. We dont delete for spam if the subject is notable, but rewrite. DGG ( talk) 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, allow recreation if sourced better. The sources do not confirm the details of the article; they are only about the marathon coverage, not the company itself. Chick Bowen 03:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse, no consensus - that last sentence of the nomination though is a bit iffy, what led you to that conclusion? DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Never mind, I just read the leaving essay... ouch. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the closer interpreted the debate correctly. There is nothing in the AfD to support the nominations assumptions about the closer's motivations and the leaving essay posted 14 days after the close of the MediaZone.com AfD doesn't offere any support for the speculation. Allow recreation if sourced better. -- Jreferee T/ C 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Delete arguments were correct - Jaranda could have provided a more ample rationale, but he was right to delete it. Eusebeus 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote count, closer got it right. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Arguments that the article was too promotional are not refuted by demonstrating notability. Eluchil404 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| AfD)

No reason to delete this, after all, WP:DENY is just an essay. Willy may be scum, but is there any reason to delete this?? Sempspriggs 15:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. and speedy close. Bad faith nomination, I can't take any editor seriously whose only other edit to Wikipedia is calling other editors "FUCKING PSYCHOS". Crazysuit 21:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:Republic of Korea armed forces (  | [[Talk:Template:Republic of Korea armed forces|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| TfD)

The TFD says deleted, but the page is still live. Given that the template was removed and readded on at least one of the pages it's being used on, I think the discussion needs to be reopened. Sigma 7 12:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure, deprecate, and delete. Should've been tagged with {{ db-xfd}} within noinclude tags. -- Core desat 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I deprecated the template, replacing it with {{ South Korean armed forces sidebar}}; something is broken with its layout though, as it doesn't get along well with the top infoboxes, so it ended up lower in the articles than it should. Not that I prefer either version, but having two is clearly undesirable. Thus, endorse the TfD as "housekeeping". Duja ► 11:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

This article shouldn't have been deleted, as it clearly met Wikipedia:Notability, and not just because of its links with FHM. It is notable enough and the consensus should have been to keep but wasn't. Also the debate didn't run for the full length of time which was procedurally wrong. Best to relist it. Quercussilkster 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, none of the information in the article was verified. The need for verifiability overrides any notability the subject of an article might have. Closing the AFD two days early was well within admin discretion, per WP:SNOW. If you can write an article that verifiably demonstrates the notability of the subject, you can be bold and do so. But if this is just another case of Briefsism, then don't bother. A ecis ^Brievenbus 11:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse not apparently notable,and no references to show otherwise. Reasonable close. DGG ( talk) 01:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - closer interpreted the debate correctly. A recent search turned up nothing. Likely WP:HOAX. -- Jreferee T/ C 06:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

London Underground trivia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD#4)

Prior to the last deletion debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination), which finally resulted in the article's removal, the encyclopedic content of this article was moved around to other articles, as stated in the AFD's nomination statement. (The harvesting of the encyclopedic content is the main reason this AFD ended differently from the previous three.) Due to the GFDL, we should keep the history online in order to satisfy the licence, which requires attribution if you use someone's work, even though the content is free. Suggest that we redirect this page to one of the three articles the content was merged to, or we could history merge it with London Underground statistics, but the history needs to be restored in some way or another. Have discussed this with the closer, but nothing else has happened since the last post [17]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and redirect to London Underground (GFDL reasons only). Will ^{( talk)} 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the closer interperted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee T/ C 06:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • How can a close which violates the GFDL be a correct interpretation? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• I thought at first that none of the text from this article survived in the merge targets (except for the negligible line " Waterloo station has the most escalators - 25." in the statistics page); closer inspection reveals that Calliopejen1 removed them as she merged them into History of the London Underground, London Underground in popular culture, and London Underground. I agree with Sjakkalle that a history merge with London Underground statistics is appropriate (especially considering that the initial edit summary cited the deleted article as its source), but this title should remain a redirect there—or wherever the history ends up—so that attribution may be found through the target articles' edit summaries. — Cryptic 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

No reason for deletion. Duarmtime 01:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Not being an admin, I can't see the original article (and whether it actually fit G11), but Wordly Wise is definitely a notable product; its used in quite a number of school systems as a major curriculum point and passes all the obvious tests (Google, etc). — Dark•Shikari ^[T] 01:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

  I've added the usual template at the top. The cached version is not significantly different than the final version. GRBerry 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, article was indeed quite spammy. -- Core desat 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Rather disappointing to see WP:CSD#G11 used to delete articles that have nothing promotional about them. Out of process. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Contrary to above opinion...article wasn't spammy, it was just ugly. Smashville 21:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Not a reasonable speedy for G11. DGG ( talk) 01:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There's very little encyclopedic information in this article; there's mostly original research about the contents. Wouldn't it make more sense to rewrite it from scratch, if it is indeed as notable as Dark Shikari says? Chick Bowen 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Reverse and rewrite per Daniel.. Someone really needs to go have a look at G11 and start a reform on that baby, because it's being misused on a large scale - I see it in AfDs and DRVs all the time... DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD - Obvious advertisement, but not so blatant as to fall under CSD G11. The topic probably does not meet WP:N. The only two references I found were Wordly Wise and Wordly Wise 3000 and Wordly wise update Best to let AfD decide. -- Jreferee T/ C 06:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per DeusExMachina and Jreferee. "Obvious advertisement"s that need a "rewrite" to become encyclopedic are exactly the "articles" G11 was introduced to deal with. If someone wants to create an actual article here from independent sources, they're welcome to do so. We should not keep this commercial abuse of our free encyclopedia hanging around untouched, almost certainly for months or years, in the meantime. — Cryptic 06:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Cryptic & as above. Eusebeus 22:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This was a valid G11 deletion. Unlike most of the other speedy criteria G11 targets articles that would be acceptable if rewritten but need to be removed because of the damage to wikipedia that allowing it to be used for advertising does. Eluchil404 19:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Order of the Phoenix (organisation) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This AFD closing as "Keep" was an egregious error. There was a clear consensus to delete the article, unless you vote count, and a non-admin made the opposite decision. The deletion reasoning was based upon failure of several policies and guideline, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, WP:FICT. The arguments for keeping were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:WAX, WP:ONLYESSAY, WP:NOTINHERITED. Some had suggested invoking WP:IAR, but only provided the circular reasoning of ignoring the rule to keep the article which we must ignore the rule to do. Jay32183 23:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Delete. I have read this five times. There is not one legitimate keep argument. Godwin was even invoked as a keep argument. Smashville 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• And if this counts for anything, it was then quickly retracted when the user realized how stupid it was. -- Kizor 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse keep, as there were many strong keep arguments and there was clearly no consensus to delete, plus no clear policy violations. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and send Jay32183 to Azkaban. This issue has come up plenty of times - here, here, here, and here to list a few. The bottom line is that the relevant guidelines are too fuzzy and arguably inconsistent to be of much use, and articles about stories which sell 325+ million books are eligible for exceptions. Consensus was to keep, and precedent supports a keep. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 23:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Guidelines are intended as guidelines, not rigid policy. Notability of specifics in books & book series does depend on notability of the book or series. DGG ( talk) 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Keep This is the epitome of no consensus - a cornucopia of users throwing UPPERCASE letters at each other. the_undertow ^talk 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep, I hate to say it, but there was no real consensus here. -- Core desat 02:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment My main concern, and the reason I would suggest an overturn, is because of the non-admin closing. To be blunt, this is one AfD that an admin should have handled as there wasn't a unambiguous keep when taking policy and guidelines into account. -- Farix ( Talk) 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I've been trying to figure out what the best remedy should be to deal with this improper non-admin closure. The most like admin closing would be "no consensus", so the article would have been kept anyways. I also don't think it is productive to relist the article either. Therefor, I suggest that the original AfD be reopened to allow for an admin closing. -- Farix ( Talk) 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Farix is right that this shouldn't really have been a non-admin closure. Still, even on the weight of the arguments, I just don't see a consensus to delete. I don't think that relisting at this time would be worthwhile. Much better to wait a month or two and see if the article improves. Eluchil404 03:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • How is every single keep being an invalid argument combined with a valid deletion reason not a consensus to delete? Jay32183 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • If one side was obviously more valid than the other, why did it fail to convince 13 of 17 editors? — xDanielx ^T/ _C 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
      • AfD isn't a vote. There was not one valid keep argument. Otherwise, by your logic, any article that goes through AfD with even one keep vote should be closed as a keep. Smashville
        • Huh? Where on earth did I say that? AfD isn't a vote, no, but it's not an autocracy either. We do aim to follow consensus in unexceptional circumstances, and consensus in this case did not favor deletion. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 00:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I don't believe that every single keep vote was completely invalid. Weak, perhaps; invalid, no. In particular, the argument was not made that the information was completely inappropriate to Wikipedia just that it was in the wrong place. Deletion is rarely called for in such cases. Even when, as here, there is little or nothing worth merging, a redirect is often appropriate. Also, I generally consider it the purview of wikiprojects and concerned editors how best to divide up information between articles. "We have too much Xcruft and these minor articles should be deleted." Is a fairly common but exceptionally poor argument at AfD since the result is almost always prune and merge which does not require, and is rarely helped by, an acrimonious deletion discussion. Eluchil404 06:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Redirecting for the sake of not having to delete an article that shouldn't be kept, merged, or transwikied is a terrible idea. In this case, the redirect is not a reasonable search term or link. Why would anyone add (organisation) or (organiztion) to the end of Order of the Phoenix when simply typing "Order of the Phoenix" will already give the article the person is looking for? Also, how does "strong argument" not beat "weak argument" when you aren't vote counting? Jay32183 20:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Throwing uppercase letters at the "keep"s does not render them invalid. It is beyond the pale that Harry Potter is a major series, and that the Order of the Phoenix plays a major role in that series, as significant as any of the major characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, while I may sympathize with the nom that this really isn't encyclopedic content and probably shouldn't be an article, it's impossible to ignore the volume of commenters whose opinion is just the opposite of it. While I may not agree with the consensus here, the consensus was still very obviously to keep. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 15:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Consensus is never determined by vote counting. It is determined by the strength of the argument. Vote counters should never be allowed adminship because it allows for " WP:IAR, because I feel like it" to be an unbeatable argument, no matter what is being discussed. Ignoring policies and guidelines requires good reasons backed by strong arguments. If you can't actually explain why a rule should be ignored, then it probably shouldn't be. Jay32183 20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I am quite aware of what consensus is and is not. The majority of the voters argue that the topic is notable for being a notable part of a notable series. Whether or not I agree with them is not important; the fact that I am in the vast minority in disagreeing with them is important. These were not just "Me too" votes but well thought out arguments for keeping the article. To discard such a tide of sentiment in favor of hyperstrict reading of the rules would be doing a gross disservice to Wikipedia and the concept of community editing. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 21:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• None of the keeps were well thought out. In fact, every one of them was factually incorrect. Notability is not inherited. This wasn't a discussion of people disagreeing, there was a right and wrong here. It's not a strict application of rules. Strict application would be following the exact letter of the law. However, people were ignoring the spirit of the law with information that indicated they had no clue what that spirit was. Even if the specifics of WP:FICT are unclear, the spirit of the guideline is quite clear. That spirit is that "importance to the plot is not how articles on fictional topics are decided" which is a direct result of WP:NOT#PLOT. WP:IAR is the rule most often applied to strictly. People become obsessed with being able to ignore a rule without considering why a rule should be ignored or not. Jay32183 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Jay, please just stop trying to summarize the AfD for others. You've demonstrated that you are not willing to do so without cherry-picking, caricaturizing, misrepresenting, or otherwise belittling the arguments on the side you disagree with. It's fine to criticize particular arguments, but blanket assertions like "every one of [the keep !votes] was factually incorrect" are really unhelpful. All of us can read the AfD, and I trust that all DRV participants would do so. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Coming to any conclusion other than "delete" means you did not understand the AFD. I did not disagree with anyone during the AFD, people were wrong and I corrected them. There was an undeniable consensus to delete. Strong arguments trump numbers every time. Jay32183 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I actually see no consensus to delete in the AfD because there where only four editors for deletion, counting the nomination itself. At the same time, I see enough keep arguments are just strong enough to make this a border line between no consensus and keep. The real problem, though is that the closing was done by a non-admin That's part of the problem with coming up with a remedy for this particular situation. That is why I'm suggestion an admin re-close using the existing comments. -- Farix ( Talk) 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Let me also add that while admins are allowed to give less weight to week arguments, such as those detailed in WP:ATA, that doesn't mean they must completely ignore them. At some point, numbers do matter. It is only when dealing with WP:V or when there is a case of sock puppetry at an admin can completely ignore the numbers. -- Farix ( Talk) 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Numbers never matter when determining consensus. Admins should not ignore weak arguments, they should point out that they are weak and inform the people making them not to make them. An invalid argument must never be used to determine the outcome of the AFD. Wikipedia is not a democracy, there is no majority rule. In this instance, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V were concerns, so by your own argument this should be overturned and deleted. Jay32183 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• "Numbers never matter when determining consensus" is going rather far. If you look "consensus" up in a dictionary, you will find nothing directly related to strength of argument, let alone an individual's opinion on strength of argument. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but that doesn't mean that we should throw WP:CONSENSUS out the window and ignore the opinions of an overwhelming 13 editors because we don't like the outcome. Doing so would fly in the face of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DP, WP:DGFA, and a clear six-year-old precedent of acting by the will of the community. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• The AFD doesn't reflect the will of the community if you only count the votes, because such a small percentage of Wikipedia participated. Existing policies and guidelines already have consensus. The will of the community is reflected in the policies and guidelines written by the community. We can't let fanboys who do not understand the spirit of Wikipedia destroy that just because there were more of them who bothered to show up to a particular discussion and only spouted nonsense. The reason vote counting doesn't determine consensus is that so few people participate that it creates a sampling error. It's a safe assumption that the people saying nothing against the existing policies and guidelines have no problem with them. 17 people wanting to throw WP:NOT#PLOT out the window because they want to do whatever they want, is not a consensus just because a group smaller than 17 pointed out the flaw of their argument. Jay32183 05:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I would agree with that principle on issues such as image copyright policy or BLP; those policies are fundamental and relate to Wikipedia's legal obligations, and therefore can't be overruled by the consensus on a single AfD. However, I also agree with xDanielx that numbers do matter in determining consensus; the closing admin should not make a decision on his/her own, but should attempt to determine a rough consensus. Such a consensus is not always present, which is why we have the No consensus result (which many admins should be willing to use more often, IMO). Notability guidelines are just guidelines, and although they do enjoy a broad community consensus, they can be disregarded to some extent where there's a clear consensus to do so on an AfD. As to WP:NOT, it's so vague as to be completely unhelpful in deletion discussions. Walton ^One 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• There is not a clear consensus to disregard them in this case. People asking for them to be disregarded does not create a consensus. There needs to be a strong reason to disregard guidelines. The "it's a guideline, not a policy" is one of the bad arguments that is not supposed to be made during an AFD. I specifically linked to WP:ONLYESSAY in the nomination because I did not want people making that terrible argument again here. There are plenty of admins who do terrible jobs because they don't know how to analyze a discussion. Vote counting is not a part of that, especially when the majority aren't making a valid point. "The argument is weak but a lot of people made it" does not justify the action they were calling for. No consensus closures only make sense when both sides of the discussion have a point. In this case one side had really strong arguments based on the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the other made weak arguments for disregarding policy and guideline simply because they felt like it. WP:NOT#PLOT is clear as day, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to consist only of plot. Other parts of WP:NOT may not be as clear, but they weren't part of the issue, so that doesn't matter. Jay32183 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Except for a few situations, the outcome of an AfD discussion is based on a *rough* consensus, not on which side has the better or stronger argument. WP:ATA only describes week arguments, it can not declare those arguments as invalid. -- Farix ( Talk) 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• WP:ATA or not, every argument presented for keeping the article is invalid. The "keeps" have a collective weight of zero. The only way that there isn't a consensus to delete is to vote count because the people saying delete were the only ones to say anything meaningful. Vote counting is stupid because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Jay32183 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Jay, if you haven't done so already, I'd strongly suggest that you participate in the development of some guideline -- say WP:NEO for example. You may be surprised with how easy it is for a small handful of regular editors to push their own views into guidelines that will later be cited in AfDs and other discussions with many more participants than the guideline itself. That's not so say that I'm particularly convinced the article in question violated a guideline -- WP:FICTION, WP:NOT#PLOT and the like are quite vague, and including the article is arguably supported by WP:SS and similar guidelines. But if we were to suppose that it did violate some guideline, it would certainly still be reasonable to make an exception for one of the most widely-read stories of all time, especially when that action is supported by a loud consensus in the AfD. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 03:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• How can you claim "reasonable exception" when no reason for the exception was ever presented. WP:IAR is the single most abused policy on Wikipedia because most people have no clue what it means. The claim for this article would be "We need to ignore this rule to keep this article, so we should ignore this rule to keep the article". That's circular logic. WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICTION are both clear as day to anyone intelligent. Articles must contain more than just plot summaries. Because of WP:V and WP:NOR this additional content must be sourced. Although WP:SS does not specifically state that the sub-articles must meet the inclusion criteria, the sub-articles do have to meet the inclusion criteria. Using WP:SS is an attempt to claim that notability is inherited. Wikipedia's general definition of notability is "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic". That is something impossible to inherit. Having a lot of people saying something that is incorrect doesn't make it right. An overwhelming majority could be arranged to claim that 2 + 2 = 19. By your logic of numbers mattering in determining consensus, Wikipedia would never be able to claim that 2 + 2 = 4 because the consensus was against it. You may want to look through the old ArbCom decisions where you can find that consensus based decisions are supposed to come from admins and bureaucrats analyzing the discussion, not simply counting the votes. Jay32183 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I agree that the closure should have been a No consensus rather than Keep (and therefore should probably not have been closed by a non-admin, although I trust Dihydrogen's judgment); however, there would be no point in re-opening on those grounds. There certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, so the outcome was correct. Walton ^One 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - perhaps there needs to be a refresher course on what these deletion debates are decided by. It is not a vote count, it is who has a better and more valid argument. An article that asserts no notablity, and whose defenders can demonstrate none, have lost the debate, and they can marshall a million keep votes if they wish, it is still not notable, has no referencing or out of universe perspective, is entirely a retelling of the harry potter plots, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Concur and Imprison nominator per Walton and Daniel. Walton's comment pretty much sums up the entire argument in a no-nonsense fashion, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. Endorse keep and throw away the key. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep- I think I hear an echo going around.....Why would you even want to get this outta here in the first place? Keyblade Mage 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Keyblade Mage reply
  • You mean aside from the article being inconsistent with policy and guideline, with no means of correcting the problem, and no reason presented as to why the spirit of the policies and guidelines does not apply in this case? Jay32183 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Keep. I'd close as keep as an admin too, not no consensus, clear keep. "Clear consensus unless you vote count?" What is that, pray tell, consensus among the few people who agree with the nominator? Not even close to a consensus to a delete. There were fine arguments presented for keeping, including "Effectively collects information from the 7 book articles into 1 place" (that's called Wikipedia:summary style, for those wanting chapter and verse from guidelines), "the subject of numerous book reviews, and Time magazine hyping" (that's called Wikipedia:Notability), "extremely important part of an extremely notable series of literature" (that's called Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), "satisfies WP:FICT" (that's called ... :-) ), and those are just from the first few argument. That you don't agree with the arguments doesn't mean they weren't made. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That is not what summary style is, that's what WP:NOT#PLOT says not to do. Summary style is actually about how to rewrite a section of the main article after an appropriate split, not a suggestion to split anything to shorten an article, some stuff should be outright deleted. The book and the film, not the organization, have been subjects of numerous reviews. That is not a justification to ignore all rules because it is WP:NOTINHERITED, one of the agruments we're supposed to avoid because of its weakness. Does not satisfy WP:FICT. WP:FICT says the article must contain sourced real world content. The article contains no real world content, and no sources exist to provide it. The users claiming WP:FICT was satisfied were lying or can't read. There was not one "keep" i disagreed with, because everyone was factually incorrect. Agreeing and disagreeing has to do with opinions, not facts. Existing policies and guidelines have consensus, the small scale discussion cannot overturn that on a whim. We wouldn't have this problem if people knew the difference between Wikipedia and the Harry Potter Wiki at Wikia. Jay32183 17:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Keep. User:AnonEMouse says it quite well, and I agree - just because you don't agree with the argument does not invalidate it. My original argument in the AfD itself isn't very clear, but many of the other "keep"s are. =David^{( talk)}_{( contribs)} 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You are incorrect. Every argument for keeping was factually incorrect and things that should never be said in an AFD. It isn't a matter of disagreement. Jay32183 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Ultra Endorse Keep Iamhungey 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Do not edit the comments of other users. Also, just like an AFD, this is not a vote. Endorse and overturn don't mean anything if not accompanied by commentary. 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- if stuff like this isn't noteworthy, what is? Oh no! More info! Run... this has gotten silly, and is probably someones personal grudge. JJJ999 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • This is not a personal grudge. AFDs are never, under any circumstance, closed by vote counting. Interpreting the debate, no one made any valid claim as to why the article should be kept. People did ask for a reasonable exception but did not present a reason for the exception other than that they wanted it. People getting together with no reason does not create a reason. Jay32183 00:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Delete Clearly fails the standard laid out at WP:FICT; the accumulation of fan-driven votes cannot trump wider policy & guideline. At a minimum, should not have been closed by a non-admin. Eusebeus 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep I can't find anywhere in consensus policy where it says we ignore arguments simply because a few editors believe they are invalid. Wikipedia policy and guidelines flow from consensus, not the other way around. Insisting that one's own interpretation of policy is the only correct one and all others are wrong is also unhelpful. If many multiple editors are independently coming to the conclusion that a certain page doesn't violate policy, well then that is the consensus (or at least it shows a lack of consensus if there are a similar number of editors who disagree), and if policy is often being interpreted in ways that are against consensus, then that policy ought to be changed. That is a major reason why we have the policy to ignore all rules. DHowell 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It's not that a few editors believe that the keep arguments are invalid, they are invalid. They are based on incorrect information and faulty logic. No one has presented a different interpretation of any of the relevant policies or guideline. Ignoring rules for the sake of ignoring rules is contrary to the intent of WP:IAR. The WP:IAR argument is always presented as circular logic, also invalid. Jay32183 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
    • You have not demonstrated that the arguments are invalid or based on incorrect information and faulty logic. Proof by assertion is not a valid argument either. Everyone who argued to "keep" is presenting a different interpretation of policies and guidelines than you, or they wouldn't argue to keep. No one is ignoring rules for the sake of ignoring rules, they are ignoring rules to improve and maintain the encyclopedia, exactly what WP:IAR says to do. Now you may believe that this article does not improve the encyclopedia, but that is merely your opinion, not an iron-clad "fact" which no one can deny. I also believe your interpretation of consensus is itself circular; you seem to be saying that "consensus" means only arguments which are validly based in policy may be considered. But as policy is determined by consensus, the argument is that consensus means only arguments which are validly based on consensus, making it a circular argument. DHowell 02:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and Keep I think that this article is needed in Wikipedia. You cannot delete it. No way. I think it is a slightly informative article, although it could do with improving, it should be kept. Also, I don't see why people have nominated this for deletion. How strange. -- MacMad ( talk · contribs)  17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Then you didn't read the discussion. Jay32183 17:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The article was created and speedy deleted under A7 a couple of times, the author provided information to suggest notability, FisherQueen undeleted it, and Jaranda speedied it again as A7. Because the article mentioned that the company won a CODiE Award (and to a lesser extent because it was listed on redherring.com's top 100 private companies in Europe), I think that it did assert notability, might represent a notable company, and should be restored. WODUP 22:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• overturn deletion. A7 used improperly. Awards definitelty assert notability. `' Míkka 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the A7 delete if the assertation of notability is there, however it still could go to AfD, and I did see one speedy as spam...is that one still applicable? -- UsaSatsui 07:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. It was speedied under A7 and G11 at different times. The creator has few edits outside this article. Jaranda might have used the wrong deletion summary. This does not worry me. The versions I looked at feel too advertorial to escape CSD G11. Useful for buzzword bingo though: "the visionaries quadrant of the Magic Quadrant" is almost awe inspiring. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Gartner's Magic Quadrant is one of the most referenced research tools in the IT industry. Look up Gartner or Magic Quadrant on Wikipedia and you can see for yourself.-- Brittcooper 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion under WP:CSD#G11. The article would need to be totally rewritten to be useful. Visionaries quadrant is not that significant; these are the companies/products that are long on ideas and short on ability to execute. Leader's quadrant is the quadrant for companies that are strong on both. The Gartner reports are also poor for satisfying WP:V, as they are not readily available without paying for them. It might be possible to write an article, but since it needs to be done afresh, best to do it that way. The red herring award source [18] is enough to support a stub, but it needs a Wikipedian to write the article. GRBerry 02:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. There is a conflict of interest here with Britt Cooper, and while there could be an acceptable article, someone else should write it. WODUP 06:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The Philosophers' Football Match (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Overturn and delete - I cannot see how the admin could have come to a keep closure by any other means but simple vote-counting. The arguments in favor of keeping were: more worthwhile than anime fancruft; well organized; not a hoax; philosophy students have heard of it; and "clearly notable" with no sources to back up the assertion other than a book which has the words "Monty Python" and "Philosophy" in the title. Meanwhile, the arguments for deletion were violation of WP:N and WP:PLOT, which were not refuted by any of the keepers. This is a clear-cut case of the closing admin's failing to evaluate the arguments and simply totting up the numbers. I asked the admin to explain his/her reasoning further and was pretty much told to stop bugging him/her. Otto4711 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

And it's also a clear case of an AfD nominator moaning that the community disagreed with him, and wanting it his way, against consensus. And I'm a he, isn't it obvious? Maxim _(talk) 20:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I don't make assumptions about the sex of anonymous people on the internet. And, the last time I checked, "consensus" on here didn't mean majority rule. It meant that closing admins were supposed to evaluate the quality of the arguments and not just count up the !votes. Are you seriously suggesting that "it's well organized" or "it's not a hoax" is an answer "there are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of the subject"? Are you saying that "it's better than anime fancruft" is more compelling than "it's a plot summary with no real-world context or significance"? Or did you just look at the words in bold before coming to your conclusion? Otto4711 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse decision to keep article as there was clearly no consensus to delete and reasonable arguments were provided to keep the article. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 22:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• "It's well-organized" is not a reasonable argument in the face of actual policy and guidelines. Otto4711 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It received arguably substantial coverage in a book, so keep !votes were reasonable. In any case, it's appropriate to make exceptions to the most general notability guideline, which covers over 2 million articles. The subject is very famous in philosophy culture; ask a random editor in the field and s/he will most likely agree. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Where, specifically, in the book you link to is this particular sketch the subject of substantial coverage? Since when exactly is "a philospoher has heard of it" a substitute for reliable sources? Otto4711 03:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• The feature performance film Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982) offers a world-class football match ("The Philosophers' Football Match") between famous German and English philosophers, including characteristic quotes (and footwork) from each.[n11] Ben Johnson may have been certain that his audience would be familiar with his historical allusions and included them as accurately as possible; Shakespeare wrote for the public and still referenced the classics throughout his works; and Monty Python created a furious mish-mash of contemporary culture and historical allusion to form a frenetic pastiche for their audience -- the television-viewing public. From the endnote: "The Philosophers' Football Sketch" was a film made for Bavarian TV and shot completely in German. The Pythons made two such films for the German market. See Johnson, 20 Years 161-6, 190. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Two sentences in a book is not substantial coverage. It is trivial. The idea that two sentences in a book establishes notability is ridiculous, and is more or less specifically addressed in the guideline: The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. Otto4711 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• It doesn't make sense to count sentences based on occurrences of some particular string of words. I didn't claim that this was a clear case of substantial coverage (note: "arguably substantial"), but all the same, please don't underexaggerate the coverage that there is. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• "Arguably" is a weasel word. One can argue anything thus everything is "arguable." Otto4711 12:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• A qualifier is not inherently a weasel word. A weasel word creates a discrepancy between an intended implicit meaning and a less obvious literal meaning. There's nothing wrong with qualifying a contentious premise with a word like "arguably," as long as it's used clearly and reasonably. If I said that "the word is arguably flat," I would be using "arguably" as a weasel word. If I say that "running is arguably a better form of exercise than swimming because the former is a high-impact sport," I'm not using "arguably" as a weasel word. I don't think there was anything deceptive or otherwise misleading about my claim. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 03:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm really concerned that the general notability guideline is fallaciously gaining momentum as an end in itself instead of as a means of determining notability through a semi-reliable proxy test. Amazing what stagnation can do -- turns controversial proposals into law. The substantial coverage condition is used because often times, there's no less sucky test, not because it it has some special relation to the meaning of notability. When actual notability becomes relatively apparent, that's when we should start noticing the guideline template on WP:N. Being very widely known within the philosophy community is an indicator of notability. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• And I'm really concerned at the notion that people have heard of it should become a substitute for substantial coverage in reliable sources. Otto4711 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Again... caricature is great for presidential debates, but it's really not helpful for DRV discussions. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• endorse I havent the least idea myself if MP sketches are notable, but I see nothing wrong with the close. DGG ( talk) 00:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (lengthily; after all, DRV is the last refuge of we PIIers) per Daniel and inasmuch as an ostensible consensus at a given XfD, or the !votes underlying that consensus, is to be disregarded/questioned by a closing admin only where the arguments advanced at the XfD do not purport to apply the relevant policies, guidelines, and practices that enjoy the broad support of the community or apply them plainly (objectively) erroneously, such that one can reasonably conclude that the insular consensus is or would be significantly inconsistent with that that would be borne out in a broader discussion; that standard is not met here, and the close is entirely reasonable (like DGG, I haven't any idea about the notability of individual MP sketches, and I don't know that any other discussions or XfDs of articles about such sketches have been undertaken, and so I don't know that anyone would object to a subsequent nomination [after some non-trivial period of time] on the same grounds in order that input from more editors might be solicited). Joe 04:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep. It may not be the most famous Monty Python sketch, but it's the most notable sketch because of it relevance to philosophy students. IOW, the sketch has fans who are not MP fans, and thereby notability apart from MP's notability. But then again, do the sketch and the article truly exist, or are they manifestations of out belief in their existence?  Randall Bart   Talk  16:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete The deletion argument was that there was no significant coverage to show notability and the keep arguments didn't deal with this issue at all. Giving the title of a book with unknown contents is not demonstration of notability. This was vote counting, and a highly inappropriate closure. Jay32183 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Concur with Sparing per Maxim, just a case of an AfD nominator moaning that he didn't get things his own way, reasonable arguments be damned. And I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel on this one. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the assumption of good faith there, buddy. You're right, it can't possibly be an honest belief that the closing admin misread the debate. The only possible reason I could have had for the DRV is sour grapes. Good to see this level of analysis on the debate. Keep up the good work. Otto4711 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well frankly no, that can't possibly be the case, because I've come to the reasonable view that no one with a neutral point of view in this matter could possibly even COME to the conclusion you have. There's not a single reason that I can see, other than sour grapes, for you bringing this to DRV, and that's not assuming bad faith, that's just simply logic and assessment of facts. And I'm sick of people using "vote-counting" as a reason to disqualify the result of an AFD simply because the keeps outnumbered the deletes and they were on the wrong side. None of the delete arguments had any weight, or at least were not of sufficient weight to outweigh the keep arguments. At the very LEAST, it's no consensus bordering on keep. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• And which of the keep arguments did you find particularly compelling? It's well-organized? It's not a hoax? It might be mentioned in a book? It's better than anime articles? Otto4711 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• probably the only one that really matters... that it is notable to be in wikipedia, and that any counter position can resolved with article improvement. but i'm just speculating.-- Buridan 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This debate needs to be toned down now. There is no reason either to attack the closing admin or the nominator. The episode is widely known, but currently there are no reliable sources in the article. Thus, both positions are reasonable, and there is no call to insist otherwise. Chick Bowen 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - academics have used monty python and douglas adams sketches as serious sources - that in itself - should be sufficient Satu Suro 11:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keeping - It may well be that the article ultimately proves to be unable to meet the general notability guidelines. I honestly don't know, and haven't had the time to check yet. If that is the case, then I believe the content will be either merged or deleted when such is established. There now does seem to be some life in the Monty Python project, and it is a standard action of projects that they themselves will merge articles which have been deemed to be either of short length or dubious notability, and I assume the good faith of the editors of that recently revived project, of which I am one, to be able to handle the articles in their scope in a reasonable manner. John Carter 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Additional closer's comments: WP:OUTCOMES, to the best of my knowledge, reflects the actual community consensus that the default outcome for an elementary or middle school is to delete. To overcome that, the school should demonstrate some unusual significance or importance. Nobody here even makes that claim, nor is there a consensus here to overturn, and the combined opinions of the AFD and DRV participants have a majority for deletion.

A standard of having verifiability be sufficient was rejected, see Wikipedia:Schools/Defunct. Wikipedia:Schools/Old proposal and Wikipedia:Schools/March 2007 reflect two more recent attempts to establish a schools guideline, and could help with what would be considered such significance or importance. These two were rejected in part because they were conflicting proposals. Although they were both somewhat edited with the intent of reaching a consensus and compromise, the school inclusionists and school deletionists were unable to form a consensus.

If anyone wants to follow the guidance in WP:LOCAL, the content could be merged to Fargo Public Schools or Fargo, North Dakota and the article moved back to main space and turned into a redirect. GRBerry 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Article and history currently at User:Thmoore/Bennett Elementary School

Part of Wikischools Project Thmoore 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I am surprised and disappointed that the article on Bennett Elementary School, in Fargo, N.D., was deleted from the Wikipedia. It was written to hew as closely as possible to the Wikischools initiative guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools). In fact, it was written using a template from that project, and marked as being part of the project as best I could.

I should also mention that the article itself was created as part of a months-long class project by a group of talented third graders at Bennett (details here: http://fargoing.blogspot.com/2007/06/leaving-our-mark.html). The project not only added to the knowledgebase of the Wikipedia, it also demonstrated Wikipedia's power to a group of future editors. I fear that unless this decision is reversed, it will teach them that their efforts are better spent elsewhere.

The Wikischools initiative aims to "write quality articles about schools around the world," and the Bennett article was the result of many hours of work of many people to do just that. The Bennett Elementary article was the only entry for an elementary school anywhere in North Dakota. If the standards for Wikipedia are so high that not a single elementary school in an entire U.S. state is worthy of inclusion, the Wikipedia community might want to reassess its standards.

I know that for me, personally, I'll be damned if I spend one more second editing or improving a Wikipedia article if this is the way quality information is treated by the community (after the article was *solicited* by the community through the Wikischools project). My time is worth more than this. There seems to be almost as great a fervor to remove information from the Wikipedia as there is to add it, regardless of the quality of the information, and that is sad.

I will further note that the administrator who made the decision to delete the article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jaranda) is no longer a Wikipedia contributor.

Thmoore 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse There was clear consensus to delete. It might have been better to relist it so there was more than two comments, but there was still consensus to delete. As to the nominator, WikiProjects have no authority. The polices and guidlines do. In this instance, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NN apply. I suggest you read up on the criteria for inclusion. — i  ^said 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn there was non-directory style information, and multiple sources cited and others seem to exist [19]... okay it's about an elementary school, that doesn't mean any claim about faling WP:NOT or WP:N is automatically true. Seems like the AFD didn't get adequate participation and just got it wrong... it happens. This isn't a paper encyclopedia... we don't need to run around trying to delete verifiable articles that pass WP:NOT just to save a few bytes, that's ineffective anyway. -- W.marsh 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no valid reason for overturning deletion given. Valid AFD with no arguments for keeping. The existence of a WikiProject means nothing for articles that would be covered by it. Blogs aren't reliable sources. -- Core desat 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • An AFD with 3 participants... different arguments for keeping are being made now. It just seems highly bureaucratic to say an article must remained forever deleted because 3 people agreed to delete it, even if new arguments are made later once more people in the community see it. -- W.marsh 20:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. First, it is irrelevant that the closing admin has left Wikipedia for unrelated reasons. There was no sanction requiring us to review this action. Second, it is touching that students worked hard on this article, but that is also irrelevant. Third, it is laudable that a WikiProject has developed guidelines for articles, and that this article followed them, but WikiProject guidelines do not trump Wikipedia-wide policies or guidelines. Finally, elementary schools are widely understood to be considered unnotable by default, and should not simply be well-referenced, but should demonstrate notability. I cannot see the history myself, but no argument was made in the AFD for any claim of notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn altogether, not just permit re-creation. Actually, if the admin has left, any admin could have undeleted without coming here. But since its been questioned, we should continue the Deletion Review. Closing an afd with only nonspecific comments was not correct, and it should have been continued. In this case, I think the article would possibly have made it. To permit discussion, and possible re-creation, I have moved it to user space as User:Thmoore/Bennett Elementary School. DGG ( talk) 00:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Very reluctant endorse. A good article, but ultimately I have to agree with WP:EFFORT. The trend generally favors deleting elementary schools, and I couldn't find any sources which I think warrant an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm the nominator, so no recommendation, just a note. My main point was not that people worked hard on the Bennett article, or that the admin who whacked it has left in a huff. So please don't misstate my argument by focusing on those items. (Also, respectfully, I would suggest that anyone who characterizes it as falling afoul of WP:NOT#DIR has not read the article.) Make no mistake: My main point was that this is information that is worthy of being in the Wikipedia. I reviewed the notability guidelines, and find that they have no provision for entities that play a vital role in a community, but fail to be mentioned regularly in external press reports. This is a failure of the notability guidelines. In the real world, outside the WP notability guidelines, it's hard to argue that elementary schools are per se non-notable; they are the focus of a great deal of effort on the part of parents, school administrators, school boards, national politicians, and so forth. They employ a tremendous number of people nationally and, of course, millions of students attend them. Enormous amounts of money are spent on them locally, and billions of federal dollars are devoted to them as well. They are the centers of the communities in which they sit. But unless a teacher seduces a student or, God forbid, there's a shooting there, they are unlikely to have external press coverage individually. But if something newsworthy does happen at an elementary school you know as well as I that many folks, including reporters, would first go searching for information about the school in the Wikipedia. Thmoore 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This may all be true, but if it's impossible to write something without resorting to original research, it's very hard for Wikipedia to keep it. It's not enough for Wikipedia to have something that's true - someone has to be able to verify it. Otherwise, people could put up anything and say, "well, it's true!". ColourBurst 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- Other than under WP:Speedy, importance/significance is not a basis to delete. None of the delete discussion sought speedy delete under CSD A7 and the closer did not speedy delete. The article itself was not a directory. The references in the article at the time of the AfD were never discussed or even mentioned in the AfD. There was nothing left of the discussion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Jreferee T/ C 18:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn no valid justification for deletion has been provided. Alansohn 21:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn. The article was verifiable and not a directory entry by my understanding of the term as it appears to include material which a directory entry would not. I'm ambivalent on the topic of notability. ColourBurst's NOR line doesn't really apply to this - no novel synthesis in sight. Absent the references, I might have endorsed as the non-directory material would not have been verifiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Hmmm, looking at the article NOR doesn't really apply, you're right (but only because of the two offline sources, and I have no idea as to the content of those sources). Given that, I think that an article on an elementary school (or high school, or small town) would look like this, so that only leaves notability, so I'd have to say relist it. On the other hand, Thmoore, Wikiprojects are great, but they don't own sections of the encyclopedia so a site-wide consensus still has to be reached, and every time the schools notability criteria has been raised it's deadlocked. Maybe WP:LOCAL applies here? ColourBurst 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Nothing out of process and no clear indication that the article satisfied notability guidelines. Eusebeus 22:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

This article was deleted by an admin questioning the validity of this breed. A simple google search on "pyrapoo" will result in numerous listings of poodle hybrids, of which pyrapoo is commonly listed, including the wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poodle_hybrid) on poodle hybrids. Jjnero 14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Are any of these reliable sources, though? A wikipedia article isn't, and I get no results for "pyraboo" in books or news stories. As a contested PROD, this should probably be undeleted and sent to AFD... but I am not convinced this has any chance at AFD. -- W.marsh 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

This article was deleted due to a concern of its credibility. The website on which the topic discusses has since been referenced in further publications which are now included in the Wikipedia article. Saracity123 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as valid deletion under speedy criterion G11 (blatant advertising). Eluchil404 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - CSD G11 Blatant advertisement masquerading as an article. See WikiSpam. Comment - Artists Robert Watts created "Flugpost" and "Yamflug" stamps with a denomination in the lower corner in the 1960s. Flugpost also is a German newsletter dealing with German airlines. There also is Flugposition, Flugpoker, Flugpools, Flugpolitische, Flugpolitik, Flugportal, Flugportale, Flugpotenzial, and Flugpostmarke. However, there is nothing about Flugpo or Flugpo.com. The topic would not meet the general notability guideline. -- Jreferee T/ C 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Article was falsely claimed to be unreferenced, when it contained text from Dwelly's dictionary (no, it's not purely a "dicdef"), and is definitely not a hoax. Furthermore, it was not listed properly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland, which is the area for people with some knowledge of Scottish subjects. Note also, apparently Scottish folk traditions are "not notable", which is big news to us... -- MacRusgail 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment - in most cases, the encyclopedic articles from Dwelly's dictionary were originally sourced at the bottom of the page. This sourcing was moved to the talk page, which I believe may be the source of the confusion in many cases. -- MacRusgail 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore. I looked at the deleted article and I can understand why people thought it was a hoax, but given the low level of participation in the AfD, and the sources referred to by the nominator, I think we can restore the article and give knowledgeable editors some time to bring it up to standard. (It can always be listed for AfD again if notability can't be established.) Walton ^One 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Disagreement with the unreferenced and dicdef assertions should have been done at the AfD. Listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland is not a requirement for a proper AfD listing. Comment The only reference I found regarding big bonnet was in the content of large hats. I did not find anything regarding "struileag." This "Dealbhan dìleab na dùbailteachd" article mentioned something about "boineid" but not "mhòr." I did not find "big bonnet", "boineid mhòr", or "Struileag" at Appendix to Dwelly's Gaelic-English Dictionary. Wikipedia:Notability is about sufficient relaible source material, not importance or fame. No objection to recreating the article if sufficient relaible source material can be located. -- Jreferee T/ C 18:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. No evidence yet presented that this can become more than a dictionary definition. WP:NOT#DICT applies, as far as I can tell. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that someday somebody will find sources other than the one used (see {{ Dwelly talk}}), but the only source used was a dictionary, making it content for Wiktionary rather than here. Any article would likely not belong under an English title anyway, unless there is evidence that there is a common English term for the concept, not just a literal translation of a non-literal meaning. GRBerry 02:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Irmo Middle School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Closed as no consensus, even though there was four votes to delete and one as a weak keep. The weak keep was because they won a middle school state championship, in which there aren't any sources. Overturn and Delete 131.94.22.243 23:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse — eh, it looked pretty borderline all around, and the sources at the end could reasonably push it over the edge for a closer. -- Haemo 00:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse sources provided establish notability. Alansohn 02:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Slight endorse. Mandsford's !vote seemed to be "tentative keep," and Isis4563's seemed something like "probably slight keep, though I don't really care." The sources listed at the end don't exactly flatter the school with high-profile attention, but it's common and reasonable to enforce WP:N somewhat less stringently for schools just as we do for mountains and the like -- they have some inherent notability so there isn't such a big issue with verifying their notability. I'm not saying it's an obvious keep, as the inherent notability is not huge, but it seems pretty borderline. I wouldn't have complained if this AfD was closed as delete, but I think Maxim's closure was fair enough. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, arguments for deletion were clearly stronger. Sources provided were not about the school itself and did not address any concerns. -- Core desat 07:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Isis4563 was the only editor to address WP:N and no one challenged the reliable sources, so it appears that the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee T/ C 08:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Those are local news stories that people got shot in front of the school, nothing about the school in general. 131.94.55.107 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

  They weren't stories about a shooting at the school. They were stories about a seventh grader sexually harassing and threatening to rape six girls. I would appreciate it if you actually read the stories before judging this. Just to add to the number of stories about the incident, there was also an article about it on the state newspaper's site (no link). I don't know if it was in the paper itself, but I don't see why it wouldn't be. -- Isis 4563 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

  Users commenting here may also want to look at this, this ,and this. There are other, less recent stories here and here. -- Isis 4563 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

  Isn't it also likely that reliable source material was generated for the topic when the bond was being passed to raise money for the school, during the time the school was being built, etc. Reliable source material includes government documents, which most public schools are the subject of, so there is no reason someone can't tap into those. -- Jreferee T/ C 17:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

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

This article on a reputable Japanese video game developer was unfairly shut down for "questionable notoriety". It presented an unbiased overview of a fan-favorite company, while hundreds of other developers still exist on Wikipedia. Gutsdozer 23:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Please find reliable sources to verify notability. The subject may very well be notable, but without adequate sources we can't really judge it as such. — xDanielx ^T/ _C 02:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply
• Undecided - The deletion was based on an outdated prod and the article may be restored based on a resonable request. See proposed deletions. If consensus thinks the above request is reasonable, then the article should be restored. -- Jreferee T/ C 08:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply