Boston Tea Party (political party) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I contend that this article adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines, and that the argument that it does not resolve problems brought up in AfD has no grounds. Arthur Rubin, the admin who deleted the article, said "Take it to WP:DRV, if you disagree", thereby indicating that he has no wish to discuss the matter with me. I have never discussed anything with Arthur Rubin. -- Isaiah Sage 08:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sustain denial of speedy This is a recreated article, Gwen Gale declined a G4 on the basis that sources have been added; the key source added was from the Miami Herald. and it included the information that its presidential candidate "is on the ballot in Florida, Tennessee and Colorado and a write-in candidate in more than 10 other states. It is the first time his party has had a presidential nominee". Since the deletion rationale was on the basis that nothing had been proven beyond mere existence, the new article meets the test for resolving the problem. I suppose a new AfD could be started, but I think it would quite possibly be kept. DGG ( talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. This does not fix the fundamental problem that the party is of no significance whatsoever, as reflected by a profound lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article - coverage in the sources presented in the current iteration of the article demonstrate notability. I agree that it's thin and I would like to see one more fairly substantial source at least but what's there is sufficient. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/keep per the October 31, 2008 Associated Press article which constitutes non-trivial coverage from an independent reliable source. [1] the skomorokh 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/Keep as the New Statesman and AP (via the Miami Herald) articles are on-topic, in some depth, and from reliable third-party sources so the notability and verifiability thresholds are met. - Dravecky ( talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/keep due to addition of independent sources. This political party has received some coverage in independent sources, and about 12 million people are going to see it listed on a November 4 presidential ballot (or already saw it, if they voted early). I think some of them might wonder what this party is about and want to look it up. That's an area in which Wikipedia can be helpful. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/Keep Reliable and verifiable independent sources establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, the existance of multiple, non-trivial sources would indicate to me that this would possibly pass an AfD. As such, I do not feel it is suitable for speedy deletion. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC). reply
• Endorse deletion; although not invited here, I think the article would still fail a new AfD for the same reasons as the previous one. It's not technically a "re-creation" of a deleted article, as it has different sources which only have a passing mention of the Party, but I think it should be deleted under G4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Caliper Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is similar to many other company pages, & we feel it is not blatant advertising. It was specifically written to provide information only. The administrator who deleted this noted on his talk page that he would try and review this, but never did, [2] and his talk page states that he rarely has time to manage his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecographer ( talk • contribs) 20:58, October 31, 2008

• Comment - is this in reference to the company at caliper.com? -- Suntag ☼ 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• All of the nominator's/creator's edits involve adding a mention to the corporation whose article was deleted. And who's "we"? MER-C 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Question - Does your company meet the notability guidelines for corporations? If yes, please explain how it does (providing sources helps your case out). If you can, we can help you recreate the article. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The article was not speedied as A7, no indication of notability; it was speedied as G11, entirely promotional. I've looked at the article, and it has no promotional material or language whatever, just a description of the company. Invalid speedy, regardless of notability. Burt there is a reluctance here to restore articles even after improper speedies if the subject is very likely not to be notable. Now, the references included a third party full signed review from Infoworld with the headline "Maptitude offers unbeatable mapping value for Windows". Maptitude is one of their main products; I consider this a perfectly adequate indication that the company might be notable, enough to pass speedy at any rate.. The company's home page contains the information that a number of states including Alaska and Hawaii used their primary more expensive product as their principal planning software, another good indication of notability. Unfortunately, the article left this information to the references, and neglected to mention it in the text. If anyone had bothered to check the references they would have been able to offer simple advice on how to improve the article sufficiently. I think it'll pass our notability standards after that, particular with the addition of reviews of their other products. I see no reason to send it to AfD if they are added. I note the admin who deleted this did it without prior nomination, a practice that ought to be forbidden at least for G11 and A7, where the concurrence of 2 people make for more reliable decisions. As for the question sure to be raised about asking him the talk p. has the message that that postings left for him are unlikely to be replied to quickly--he is actually around and responding promptly, but a newcomer might have talked that warning at its literal word. I am also concerned that some commentators above may not have examined the material either. DGG ( talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I can't examine the material, so thanks to DGG for summarizing it and overturn based on the above. Paxse ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse 100% valid A7, also WP:SPA / WP:COI / G11 concerns, but fundamentally the fact is that this article made absolutely no assertion of the significance of the company and neither does the requester above, who states merely that (a) it exists and (b) other crap exists on Wikipedia. Neither is persuasive. There were two "references", both of which were trade body directories. Guy ( Help!) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - as per Guy I've read the deleted article and see just a simple "I am here" stub about a company that asserts zero significance. Whether Speedy G11 or A7 is not really relevant...I would have speedy A7'd this as well - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - In view of the above, the Speedy Deletion was appropriate under A7. The deleting admin need not be correct in the speedy deletion reason listed in the deletion. So long as any of the speedy deletion reasons apply, the speedy deletion was valid. -- Suntag ☼ 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I'm also at a disadvantage here not being able to read the deleted article, but if it contained a reference to the Infoworld source linked above then it certainly wasn't an A7 - the reference itself is an indication of importance/significance as required by A7 - and nobody seems to be arguing that a G11 was valid. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD. I am deeply skeptical that this organization will meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies, especially given the conflict of interest issues raised above. But those are questions best sorted out through community discussion. I can see the arguments in support of speedy-deletion under criterion A7 but think that this case is close enough to the line that discussion is required. Looking at the last deleted version, I can not support the assertion that the page qualified under G11, though. "Blatant" advertising is a substantially higher standard than we saw here. Rossami (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG, list at AfD if desired. If I could see it, I might say otherwise, but given that at least one admin thinks it isn't a valid speedy, it should come to everyone. Hobit ( talk) 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

AFD wasn't given the full 5 day period (it was closed the same day it opened) even though the opinions of the commenters were still all over the places. Mgm| ^(talk) 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AfD did run for 5 days - it was relisted once. No other issues of procedure are raised.  Sandstein  20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I couldn't find where the topic was closed. Please post diffs to show that it was closed the same day it opened. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Not sure how I feel about this one yet (I haven't read the AfD), but it was created on the 25th and was closed on the 31st. That's five days. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Not sure how I managed to botch that. Still, I disagree with the assesment there was concensus. - Mgm| ^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - though I agree with Mgm about the lack of consensus. I argued to keep myself. However, 5 days were up and there are a HELL of a lot of AfDs these days. Some poor bugger has to close them all. I approached the closing/deleting admin afterward and explained the logic for leaving both articles as a redirect (easy for browsers using the 'pedia). S/He agreed and very politely left them both as redirects instead of deleting. Mgm, that was your vote - you won! (and convinced me as well :) Paxse ( talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but there is probably material to be had, at least in Swedish sources, and a proper article describing his life can be written. The illegitimate sons of monarchs usually do play a significant role--since he died in his 30s as a Merchant in china, he probably does have a notable career at least as a merchant. DGG ( talk) 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

My thoughts exactly - but I couldn't find (or read) the sources to do it during the AfD. The redirect leaves expansion as an option later. Paxse ( talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Should history restoration be put on the table? While the redirect is probably the best choice until the putative sources can be found, having the history readily available might make recreation easier if warranted. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn It should have been closed as no conesnous to delete probably, and IMO, a redirect (keeping history) would have been enough as sources would seem likely to exist. But just on the bounds of admin discretion. Also, if the closer had explained a bit about his/her thoughts on the arguments rather than just stated an opinion which was (as I read it) "just not notable" I'd be happier here. Hobit ( talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment as AFD closing admin - no objections with the history, such as it is, being restored behind a redirect, although there is nothing there that isn't in the Oscar I article already. Also no objections if someone can find more sources to produce an expanded article on either Max or the other son and wants to recreate it. fish& karate 09:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as no indication has been made as to how the deletion process was not followed. Stifle ( talk) 12:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The nom has indicted that "Still, I disagree with the assesment there was consensus". Hobit ( talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Two "keep"s, both of which failed to show how the article passed WP:BIO, or WP:PEOPLE, and five "delete"s - that's a consensus to delete, Hobit. fish& karate 11:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Glimcher Realty Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy deleted as A7/G11. Contained a valid assertation of notability by citing a couple sources and asserting notability with "As of 2007, the company's properties consisted of 23 malls (with a total leasable area of 20.6 million square feet), and four community centers (with a total leasable area of 1 million square feet).". Furthermore, I'm finding plenty of sources online, and almost all of their properties seem notable enough for a page. Deleting admin has been asked about this back on the 24th by another editor and doesn't seem to have responded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• List at AFD. I'm not convinced they're notable, but the speedy deletion seems inappropriate. Notability is asserted, and the tone doesn't seem spammy to me. And if TenPoundHammer is right that there are sources out there, then it shouldn't have a problem with surviving an AFD. Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Never mind. The deleting admin restored the article. Consider the DRV closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, okay then. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:College radio stations in Oregon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache))

A similar category from a different state was listed for a minor change at WP:CfD. That discussion turned into a blanket discussion of all college-radio-station-by-state categories; with minimal discussion and no notification to other WikiProjects or the category creator, it was determined to delete the categories. I don't see any fault in this situation, but merely an unfortunate collection of coincidental circumstances that led to a decision without sufficient notification or discussion. It's my hope that this DRV is relatively uncontroversial, and that a relisting will result in a more robust discussion. Pete ( talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Note discussion at Category talk:College radio stations in Oregon.

Further note: the original CfD was here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 25#Category:College radio stations in Georgia

• Relist and notify all interested parties, as nom. I don't have a very strong opinion about whether or not the category should exist, but there are compelling points of view from parties who were unaware of the original decision. - Pete ( talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist so this discussion can bring some closure and the limited time and attention of both projects involved (and all other interested parties) can be returned to productive efforts. - Dravecky ( talk) 02:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete first to maintain the status quo and Relist - First, if you look at the deletion log, the cat was originally deleted per some sort of rule propagated by a WikiProject. Only later was it mentioned that some how there was a CFD. ALong those lines, this category was never listed at CFD, it was merely mentioned. It is analogous to in an AFD about person A, and then person B who has the same attribute is mentioned in the AFD and some people at the AFD say it too should probably be deleted. Then that's it. Nobody lists the article about person B at the AFD nor is a notice placed on the article to inform people that, "hey people are discussing so lets all get together and discuss this because we are hoping to create WP:CONSENSUS in a transparent manner". This way people who might be familiar with person B can come in and at least have the opportunity to make the case why person B is different from person A and should not be deleted. Otherwise we are allowing for collateral attacks on cats/articles instead of striving for community WP:CONSENSUS through actual debate with the community, and the community needs notice in order to participate, which didn't happen in this case. Aboutmovies ( talk) 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The Radio Wikiproject was aware of this. [3] Seeing as there were discussions at the project and CFD, relisting is not necessary. -- Kbdank71 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I wasn't clear in the nomination: it's WikiProject Oregon that wasn't notified, as well as Aboutmovies ( talk · contribs) who created the category. From what I can tell, it's not required that related WikiProjects and category creators be notified, but in this case, the lack of notification caused a significant perspective to be left out of the discussion. - Pete ( talk) 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Kdbank71, may I ask that if a group of a couple people get together and decide something should be deleted, then one of those people can just go ahead and delete something without going through the formal processes outlined at AFD and CFD? Aboutmovies ( talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

AM, can you double-check what you wrote there? I can't understand the question. - Pete ( talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Three people decide something should be deleted. One of those people then deletes that. Never is the item properly listed via the formal process outlined for that type of item (AFD/CFD). Is that proper? Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Category:College radio stations in Georgia was listed at CfD at 01:49, 25 May 2008. Category:College radio stations in Oregon was added to that CfD 01:46, 27 May 2008 and the CfD was closed 22:50, 5 June 2008. Since all the !votes were consistent and sufficient time was alloted to consider Category:College radio stations in Oregon, Category:College radio stations in Oregon fate was properly decided by the Category:College radio stations in Georgia CfD. In other words, Category:College radio stations in Oregon was validly upmerge at CfD (assuming that Category:College radio stations in Oregon was properly tagged with a CfD deletion notice - something an admin can verify for this DRV). CfD suggests, but does not require, personal CfD notifications. I do not see any procedural flaws in the CfD. The 23 October 2008 speedy deletion of the above category by Bearcat was supported by G4. -- Suntag ☼ 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's the problem, the Oregon cat was not tagged, as is outlined at the RFC noted above. Thus the big problem here. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the CfD as to Category:College radio stations in Oregon and Overturn the 23 October 2008 G4 speedy deletion. - Per Aboutmovies's 21:30, 31 October 2008 post above, [4] Category:College radio stations in Oregon main page was not tagged on or near 27 May 2008 with {{subst:cfd}}, {{subst:cfm|OtherCategory}}, or {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} as required by CfD Procedures. Since the notice portion of the CfD process was not followed, the CfD was not valid for Category:College radio stations in Oregon. -- Suntag ☼ 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist – (assuming the Oregon cat was not tagged) it's a requirement to tag a category before deletion via cfd. (The linked cfd discussion is by no means unanimous anyway.) It's not clear to me why WikiProject Oregon is deemed to be subservient to WP:RADIO in this matter. Occuli ( talk) 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

And it's not clear to me why other people are deeming WP:ORE as having precedence over WP:RADIO in this matter. Bearcat ( talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

And on a semi-related note and just for the record, it's WP:WPRS (the Radio Stations project) not WP:RADIO (the Radio project) in the mix here. - Dravecky ( talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Bearcat why do you think people are deeming the ORE as having precedence? Is it because the person you are replying to said "assuming the Oregon cat was not tagged"? I believe they are simply pointing out that the Georgia cat was tagged, and if the Oregon one was not, then the Oregon one could not be deleted as it was not tagged, you know per the instructions on how CFD works. And at the time if you had simply followed through in finding the best way by working with other wikiprojects to find a good way to categorize (say WP:ORE and WP:UNI who would be the other "stakeholders" if you will with the cats), then all this could have been hashed out in a normal CFD months ago. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

At a guess, Bearcat is referencing the edit summaries left by the editor that recreated this category where this sentiment was expressed, albeit in a confusingly contradictory manner. In any case, while I know that WP:NME is only an essay, not policy, I find it ironic that this specific case is clearly address: "Subcategories by genre, network or ownership group may also be created (e.g. Category:College radio stations in the United States, Category:CTV network stations). However, do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories — for instance, do not create third-level subcategories for "College radio stations in Oregon" or "CTV network stations in Ontario"." - Dravecky ( talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

First then what does Bearcat's edit summary "‎deleted "Category:College radio stations in Oregon" ‎ (per Radio Stations Wikiproject, format categories aren't broken down by state.)" mean when he deleted the category in the first place mean in the context of project superiority? That summary is exactly why my subsequent edit summary said what it said. And as explained in detail at the RFC, Bearcat has been informed about the intention and meaning of that summary (which no project has superiority). Further, if you like I can point you to an AFD or two that shows I have been advocating prior to this radio issue that WikiProject rules mean little as they can conflict with others, thus they should not be used to justify deletions as Bearcat explicitly did.

Second, then how does breaking down radio station by state not violate your "do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories"? Radio station=not geographical, state=geographical. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Very large categories of a basic type are routinely broken down on national and, in some cases, significant sub-national divisions but what is strongly discouraged is a third-level subcategory such as the one under discussion here. - Dravecky ( talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I can confirm the category was not tagged. I double-checked the edit history, and nothing about adding a tag is there. - Pete ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Since admin Pete confirmed the lack of CfD notice on the category page, that establishes that the CfD was not valid for Category:College radio stations in Oregon. -- Suntag ☼ 18:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Mixtape Messiah 4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Very informative article. Really good mixtape, many other articles that should be deleted but definately not this one Dc 0808 ( talk) 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Against deletion Great mixtape, I thought this was Wikipedia the most informative site out there and you delete your Mixtape Messiah 4 article. The admins on here need to stop being biased and undelete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc 0808 ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sustain Delete Might be the best "mixtape" on the planet, there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources for it--therefore it would simply be an original creation... but I see no reason to overturn the AfD. Just being "really good" is not a reason.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin Proper procedure, clear consensus, not that nice response at User_talk:MBisanz#why_did_you_delete_Mixtape_Messiah_4_article. MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the obvious and only closure. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Against deletion - This mixtape has MTV.com as a resource and some well-known reviewers plus this is the second most popular mixtape series in hip-hop(next to Da Drought Series by Lil Wayne) I even think that people who have good knowledge of hip-hop as a whole should only be able to evaluate whether articles should be deleted because clearly this MBisanz does not know what6 he is doing as far as this mixtape article goes. Xx1994xx ( talk)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin read the AFD just right, and there's no reason given to reverse it. (Note that the "insult the deleting admin" technique doesn't usually work well in getting a deletion reversed.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Against deletion* - it is not an insult it is just my opinion plus the previous mixtapes, mixtape messiah 1,2 and 3 are not deleted and you can't have part a series have an article and delete the other half and dont think you can delete the others because mixtape messiah 1 is a retail album being the best selling mixtape to come out of texas so it is very notable, you have an article about an album/mixtape that is part of a series then you must have the rest of the series. 76.101.122.31 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC). reply

Against deletion - This article should be kept Mixtape Messiah 4 is part of a popular mixtape series and all parts of it needs to be kept. Xx1994xx ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC). reply

• Endorse deletion - unanimous in favor of deletion, no procedural errors in the close. For those trying to argue notability here, DRV is not AFD round two. DRV serves to appeal XFD decisions either on the basis of a mis-read by the closing administrator or if there is significant new information that is brought to light after the XFD has closed. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Against deletion - Mixtape Messiah 1 is the best selling mixtape out of texas and mm3 won mixtpe of the year at o-zone awards so you have to have all parts of a notable series. Xx1994xx ( talk)
• Endorse - Since the closer interpreted the debate correctly. Mixtape Messiah 4 is a mixtape from Houston rapper Chamillionaire [5] that follows up Mixtape Messiah/ Mixtape Messiah 1, Mixtape Messiah 2, and Mixtape Messiah 3 and preceeds Mixtape Messiah 5. Chamillionaire is a well known rapper for which there is a significant amount of reliable source material. See Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. However, the "rapper was dubbed "The Mixtape Messiah" after selling thousands of tapes and copies of his first album, Get Ya Mind Correct." That leads to a problem in Wikipedia. There are article that discuss him by his "Mixtape Messiah" nickname and others that discuss his Mixtape Messiah work product. After a search, I believe there clearly is enought reliable source material for a Mixtape Messiah (recordings) or Mixtape Messiah (series) article and perhaps independent articles on Mixtape Messiah/ Mixtape Messiah 1, Mixtape Messiah 2, and Mixtape Messiah 3. There is not enough info to have a separate Mixtape Messiah 4. This all can be resolved by creating Mixtape Messiah (recordings) or Mixtape Messiah (series) and spining off any subtopic as needed rather than insulting volunteers through a lack of understanding on how Wikipedia works. -- Suntag ☼ 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Proper procedure followed, no new information given to indicate decision should be reversed. Suntag's suggestion is a good way forward for those wishing to create a new article. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion the deletion discussion was carried out correctly and was unanimous. No reason has been presented to overturn the result. Hut 8.5 19:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and archive this as a classic example of puppetry and citing arguments to avoid. Guy ( Help!) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Against deletion - making an article on the series may work. Xx1994xx ( talk)

"nd archive this as a classic example of puppetry" how so? You guys are just haters man...get over yourselves.

• Endorse deletion and beat User:Xx1994xx with the clue bat; the "just haters" accusation died in the '90s. JuJube ( talk) 08:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Vienna fingers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Proposing for relist. Made request for specific hit context inferring notability rather than ' X many Google hits,' but the only responses were an item that would belong in a trivia section, and "is cited by major media as one of the flagship products." Discussion was closed and article kept without further context being provided. Asked admin about it here and got response here. arimareiji ( talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• sustain the keep. already listed the full 5 days, and then relisted--whereupon a keep consensus quickly emerged. -- and rightly so,considering the available citations from multiple sources, and the clear indication there could be many more. Consensus can change, but since it seems to be changing if anything in favor of such articles, I would not advise trying again for at least 6 months or so. DGG ( talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support the keep. I'm basing my decision based solely on the AfD in question, and it looks to me that "keep" was the right conclusion based on the points provided by each of the editors. While there are reasons to delete, there are also reasons to keep and the consensus (as I see it) was resolved correctly. I see no reason to change at this time.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support DRV should not be used as an AfD do-over. Ecoleetage ( talk) 01:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - not sure if it's incorrectly tagged, but there's no link from Vienna fingers to this discussion. I agree with Arimareiji about there being problems with the validity of arguments at the AFD; the Google News search in particular finds lots of hits, but primarily as trivial passing references in lists, party tips, etc at the level of "Try fruit like strawberries and cherries or pretzels, biscotti, marshmallows, vienna fingers or mini cream puffs. Less work for you, more fun for them". There's very little there that I'd call secondary sources about them. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am putting an "Under Construction" tag on the article and will work on rewriting the article (it is, admittedly, in need of serious input). Hopefully, that will put an end to the grumbling over the merits of this entry. Thanks. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

P.S. I fixed the DRV link from the article page, and I redirected the article to Vienna Fingers -- we had the wrong spelling of the product all of this time (there is an uppercase F -- "Vienna fingers" refers to Austrian hands). Thanks. Ecoleetage ( talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - could someone explain to me what Wikipedia "consensus" is? Above, people refer to the "consensus" that developed in a few hours after relisting in the original AfD, but the "consensus" referred to is three people saying "I agree" - no new arguments, just votes.
  Did I misunderstand what "consensus" means in actual practice because of having read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ("primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting") and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD ("The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments")? I've only been here since July, and if I misunderstood the meaning in practice - i.e. weight of votes, rather than weight of logic - I want to know so I can stop making incorrect assumptions. arimareiji ( talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  
• New evidence that the discussion itself was flawed - one of the primary arguments in the AfD was "Plus, regarding Neil Simon's mention of the cookie in "The Odd Couple" -- that play was written in 1965. The article clearly needs enhancing, not erasure."
  This is the actual quote, to show how topical it was:

  "Get something to eat first. Like some nice, hot Ovaltine?... How about some Vanilla Wafers or Vienna Fingers or some Mallomars? You like a nice box of chocolate Mallomars?"

Oscar: "How about vanilla wafers? Or Vienna fingers? I got everything."

The Odd Couple: A Comedy in Three Acts, By Neil Simon. Published by Random House, 1966, Original from the University of Michigan. Digitized 3 Mar 2008, 116 pages (provided by another editor in another thread)

-- arimareiji ( talk) 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the quote! I added it, along with proper referencing to a published text of the Neil Simon play, along with several news articles relating to the subject. Please note -- this is strictly a stub and will probably never get to GA (let alone FA). But on its own merits, it has become fairly clear (both in the AfD discussion and in the ongoing editing process) that there is notability here. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You really don't see how nontopical it is to say that Vienna Fingers deserve an article because of one product placement in a 1968 movie? If I were a subscriber to the pernicious WP:POINT school of thought (I'm not), I can think of several thousand product placements that need their own articles now. arimareiji ( talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

(Edited because it was subsequently shown that the original line in the play didn't include "Mallomars." I don't know about you, but I can only think the subsequent addition was for humor, providing circumstantial evidence that original intent was not product placement. Try saying "Mallomars" three times fast, and you'll see what I mean.) ;-) arimareiji ( talk)

Considering that no person argued that the article's survival rested on a single line from a 43-year-old play, I don't follow your argument. In any event, I am in the process of expanding the article, and I've added information that everyone missed the first go-round -- including the documented fact that the Vienna Fingers product line was generating $50 million a year in sales when Keebler purchased Sunshine Biscuits. More fun facts will follow. Ecoleetage ( talk) 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how you can assert no one made that argument. Look at the beginning of this thread, that's a quote from you. arimareiji ( talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The closer interpreted the discussion consensus correctly. It looks like the AfD was close seven hours early, but given that the relisting resulted in keeps, the AfD substantially completed with no process error. Comment - If there still is a need, a reasonable time before relisting at AfD2 would be around after 30 January 2009 (three months from the close of AfD1). -- Suntag ☼

• Support keep: The closer interpreted the discussion consensus correctly. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn. I still maintain that there has been a disturbingly high incidence of "votes," and that AFAIK these shouldn't count wrt determining consensus. But the editing that has been drawn to the article demonstrates that it's at least worthy of a stub. Is it appropriate for me to remove the DRV tag from the article? arimareiji ( talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Significant improvements to article at User:Paulmcdonald/Wally Bullington. Article was originally deleted and deleting admin normally prefers to go to DRV rather than discuss (which is okay). The original deletion review for the article occured during a bulk deletion run on articles and referenced Walter J. West as precedence to delete. This article has subsequently been restored. There is an essay on the subject of West Precedent that may also apply. Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Restore to mainspace and optionally relist for afd. But since he was--besides the football coach and athletic director at Abilene Christian, an All-American in 1952 , I think its clear that by current standard the article would be kept. Part of a mass nomination of a sort that has since been strongly discouraged, because it did not give the opportunity to show notability like this. DGG ( talk)
• I don't have a problem returning this to mainspace immediately. I'll voice my comment again that wikipedia doesn't operate by Stare decisis. Protonk ( talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore - AfD would be a pointless exercise as the article in its current form clearly meets WP:V and WP:N. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - Consensus to delete was on 22 September 2008. Rather than openly display the source work such as by using Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web citation templates, the draft article appears to burry the blog and webpage sources used to generate the draft. For there to be a DRV consensus to all recreation of the article, there needs to be a showing in this discussion that enough material for the draft article comes from secondary sources and that the substantially new material was not considered at the 22 September 2008 AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that's easy enough, just check the history of the page. You'll see a one-paragraph article. The article isn't written to "bury" anything, just that's the way it flowed.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Another Comment The two templates referenced look really handy. I'll experiment with them on my own time... however, I am quite sure that using these templates is not a requirement for articles on Wikipeida.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • What about my comment "there needs to be a showing in this discussion that enough material for the draft article comes from secondary sources"? For each of the sources used in the draft, please provide a link to the website page that characterizes the site as "a third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Overview) -- Suntag ☼ 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Okay... Abilene Reporter News, Athens News Courier, WWE News, Abilene Reporter News, Boston Globe, WFAA Channel 8 Dallas/Fort Worth, College Football Data Warehouse, College Football Data Warehouse, NAIA National Football Championship, Lone Star Conference, College Football Data Warehouse, Abilene Reporter-News, Lone Star Confernece, NCAA News. While the article was indeed supplemented with other sources from the school, I'd say that the remainder would qualify... will those do? If not, please explain.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undecided. Okay, I'm new at contributing to DRV, hence the indecision. I've checked through the draft article and the new sources listed. The majority of the article information comes from just one of the sources, which isn't a great source as it is almost an advert for an event. This information was not in the article that was deleted and could be considered significant enough to be worth recreation even if it then leads to another AfD. The new version of the article would, in my opinion, have a reasonable chance of being kept after a second AfD. If that's a strong enough reason then count me as a Restore. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Restore. I would've kept it in the first place. –– Bender235 ( talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm only recently back from vacation; I'm neutral on this one. Stifle ( talk) 09:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Princess Protection Program (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Princess protection program (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Princess Protection Program. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

should not be deleted -- gdaly7 ( talk) 08:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure (keep deleted) and endorse the subsequent redeletions. The AfD consensus seems quite clear. I find no process problems in the discussion nor has any new evidence been presented to justify overturning that decision. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• This appears to be about Princess protection program and Princess Protection Program., not Princess Protection Program (the deletion of which I would endorse). Those are currently at AfD, so I suggest we just let that play out and close this. lifebaka ++ 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Those links are deleted. Little Red Riding Hood talk 20:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

'Bout an hour after I posted, yeah. So, generally, I'm afraid I'll have to endorse all deletions here, lacking any good reason to overturn the original AfD or subsequent G4's. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• endorse as I understand it, the movie has not come out yet and is still in production. Wikipedia is not a "upcoming movie review" guide, so I have to stay with endorse (but I tip my hat to the enthusiastic supporters of the article and ask politely that they try another wiki.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - no policy-based reasons for DRV have actually been given -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as there was no deviation from proper process. The author may want to improve the article in user space until the move is released. Given the star power of the heroines with the pre-teen set, I have little doubt at some point it will be. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - It's not a hoax -- " Princess Protection Program," starring Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato and Tom Verica, is about a teenage princess who must flee and go into a top-secret protection program." 10 April 2008. Eventually, there will be a Wikipedia article on the topic. However, per the 5-day AfD, the matter was reviewed and consensus found that the topic was not ready for a Wikipedia article. That makes the topic subject to speedy deletion under G4. Someone might want to review Princess (2008 film) as well. -- Suntag ☼ 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Permit recreation A disney release for Jan 2009 is obviously going to be notable when they do release it. Since it must have completed most oft he production by now, it would pass CRYSTAL also. Not permitting it in November is more than a little over-legalistic. As for process, incorrect or unreasonable application of Wikipedia criteria is a mistake in process. DGG ( talk) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Even before they release the movie, there will be verifiable content. I agree that merely because the film release itself is an event in the future does not mean that things are not happening now. If someone found enough reliable source material for the topic (and used that to create the Wikipedia article), I would not object to permitting recreation, too. -- Suntag ☼ 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. An unseemly rush to be the first in the edit history on some item which is entirely premature as far as inclusion in an encyclopaedia goes, with obsessive recreation in the face of obvious consensus - a very bad idea. Virtually nothing can be written on this subject which is not speculative or poorly sourced. Guy ( Help!) 19:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I'd like to request un-deletion of my article Freeway (eCommerce). While I agree that the first version of the article might have been considered advertising, as the software has been inadequately described due to my inexperience, I don't think so of the second version because I have toned it down to mere description of the software features.

I have read more about Wikipedia policies and rewritten the article to be more neutral, but it was deleted as "reposted spam". This happened while I was having a conversation with an admin (RHaworth) on the talk page after contesting a PROD, where I tried to explain that I was looking to improve the article not spam Wikipedia as well as the point that the article contains facts about the software as well as references.

If Freeway's notability is a concern, there was already an article in the References section interview with Freeway's author (this was while Freeway was still called osCommRes). Independently of this, there is for example article in Web Host Industry Review magazine that compares Freeway to other similar software.

To my understanding, this satisfies the rules in Wikipedia:Notability (software), especially since similar level of notability is established for similar software, for example Magento or PrestaShop.

Thank you. techwriter75 ( talk) 11:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your response. I apologize for not seeing the instruction - had I seen the instruction I would contact the Administrator first. The thing is I had a discussion with another Administrator about why I thought the page shouldn't be deleted on the talk page. The second Administrator deleted both the article and the talk page with an ongoing discussion (the 1st Administrator was requesting further information before deciding whether to finally delete the page or not). techwriter75 ( talk) 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for your quick reply. I would endorse the deletion per lifebaka below and recommend that you wait for someone else to write about the organization, as you're involved with it. Stifle ( talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• The article still was relatively spam-y in nature, and I'd put it within administrative discretion as whether or not to delete it. So, I'm afraid I have to endorse the G11 speedy. Unfortunately, judging by your username, you may have a conflict of interest in regards to this subject. If this is indeed the case, I suggest waiting for someone else to write an article about Freeway, to avoid the appearance of bias. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 13:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion as the deleting admin. As for not contacting me first, if Techwriter had contacted me, my response would have been "after further review, I continue to believe that the article, as nominated, qualified for deletion under G11. Further, I have concerns that your username indicates that you are associated with the company, so in compliance with our conflict of interest guidelines and our FAQ for Businesses I must ask you to consider not writing about your company or its products." I would have further offered that if this person still disagreed with me, that they'd be welcome to take it to DRV, so here we are. It's a COI promotional piece, even if some of the promotional tone has been removed. AKRadecki ^Speaketh 14:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks everyone for your participation in this discussion. I think I've learned a lot about Wikipedia today. As far as I am concerned there is no need for any further actions. techwriter75 ( talk) 15:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The Oz Principle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Writing to request that the page, "The Oz Principle," be unprotected so it can be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.176.169 ( talk • contribs)

• Commment - This is about the book The Oz Principle. Prior requests are here and here. For background, see Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Suntag ☼ 00:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Unprotect and allow re-creation. The book appears to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. However, the new version should not be written in a promotional/advertising style. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• After a page has been deleted so many times that an administrator has seen fit to protect it from further recreation, a request for unprotection is customarily accompanied by an acceptable userspace article draft which will save the article from being redeleted yet again. I'd like to see such a draft. Stifle ( talk) 10:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I don't see that notability has ever been a concern regarding the deletion of this page, so I'm hesitant to just unprotect on the basis that the book is notable. I'd also prefer to see a userspace draft first, in this case. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 13:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Permit restoration It has never gone to Afd. This is not AfD 1. I am personally prepared to unprotect it immediately, though I do not know if I will !vote to keep at the Afd. It's absurd to decide on that here. With respect to notability. both the principal book and the follow up are in over 500 Worldcat libraries, which is sufficient to make a case for notability, though I'd like to see also some substantial reviews. Of course, there is no speedy provision for deleting books as having no claim to notability--even if there were, this would pass it. It was deleted as G11 both times. The latest version of the article had one descriptive paragraph on each book, one on the main author, and one on the company. This is what to me gives a flavor of advertising. But I think they were both interpreting G11 very over expansively, and I do not consider that it ever was a valid G11. Personally, I very strongly dislike self-help books of this sort as a genre, and I'm somewhat suspicious of claims for them at Wikipedia, but at least part of this was a descriptive article. DGG ( talk) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Conditional allow creation - On one hand, protection of the page seems a little heavy handed since we're not seeing the usual tricks to get around deletion of the page (such as creating the page under a slightly different name). The tipic clearly is notable and can have a Wikipedia article on it. On the other hand, the DRV requestor has only had one edit, namely this DRV. Also, this is a topic likely to bring the devotees and their original research and other issues. On balance, page protection has served its purpose and there is not so much trouble surrounding this topic that we need to continue page protection. I think Wikipedia processes can handle the article. If DGG (or some other regular editor) is willing to post at least a sorced sentence or two on the topic, then allow the article to be created. -- Suntag ☼ 03:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep protected pending the independent review of a draft version. Normally, I would give a page like this the benefit of doubt but the very recent and blatant attempts to violate both G11 (advertising content) and copyright (much of the material in the deleted versions was lifted from here) has exhausted our obligation to assume good faith. The recent history justifies the extra review.
  Incidentally, it is not at all clear to me that this book would meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for books. It's sold by Amazon and has some reviews but few that meet the reliability, independence and non-triviality requirements. But that would be an issue for AfD to decide if a non-advertising version is ever created. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and allow review when a sourced, provably neutral, non- conflicted userspace draft is ready for review. Thus far all we have seen is astroturfing and spam, so a workable draft is a minimum necessity here. Guy ( Help!) 19:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Merlin (project management software) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Competitors continue to have their pages. We can change ours to satisfy. I would like to request that we undelete this page since our competitors pages are still active and it is not fair. We are willing to make our page identical to our competitors if that means we get to keep our page. Sorry if I am doing something wrong in here, I am still new at this. -- Situmam 14:32, 28 October 2008

• Whether competitors have a Wikipedia or not isn't relevant here. The consensus of the community at the above-linked deletion discussion was that the article shoule be deleted, and I endorse that deletion. If you feel other pages don't meet the inclusion criteria, please nominate them for deletion too. Stifle ( talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Close - DRV is for discussing defects in the Merlin (project management software) AfD or presentation of substantial new reliable source information not considered at the AfD. Policy changes can be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and proposals can be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). It is impressive that the DRV's requester's fourth post is to DRV, but unless a DRV reviewable basis is presented, I don't think this discussion will be productive. -- Suntag ☼ 17:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but if you can find 3rd party substantial published reviews of the software, it would be another matter entirely. DGG ( talk) 20:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I can find no process problems with the debate. Note: I would strongly encourage the nominator of this discussion to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. If your company truly meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards for companies and products, be patient. Someone will write about it. In the meantime, trying to do it yourself usually does not turn out the way the writer intends. It's just too hard to be neutral when writing about something close to yourself. Rossami (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As my old history teacher was wont to say, "don't go around expecting life to be fair, 'cos it ain't". Undelete rationale does not address the reasons for deletion and rather tends to reinforce them. Guy ( Help!) 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Emmalina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))Delete) ( AfD2 No Consensus) ( AfD3 Delete) ( DRV1 unprotect the redirect) ( AfD4 Delete)

Userfy only - PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT ASKING FOR UNDELETION - in the AfD it was suggested that because the article was well-cited and verified that there could be room to move the information to another page. I wish for the page to be userfied so I can think about where to put the sourced information. The closing moderator has repeatedly refused to do this. JRG ( talk) 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Looks like a pretty convincing consensus to delete to me. There's only one "keep" and one "userfy" comment which are both from User:JRG and one "weak keep" and a "Merge" from other users. Then on the other side there's 11 people arguing to delete based on BLP, BLP1E and notability. Plus the article subject has repeatedly requested deletion. I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. As for userfying, while there is such a strong "delete" consensus, it seems to me that you should decide exactly what you want to do with it first before asking for the closure to be overturned rather than asking for a deletion review "so (you) can think about where to put it". I personally think we're too liberal with userfying BLPs and I don't think its appropriate to userfy articles deleted with a clear consensus under BLP without some agreement about what is going to be done with them as they continue to show up in Google searches. Sarah 08:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "I personally think"... "I think" - but what about thinking of others? The information in the last version of the page is sourced. Why can't I retrieve the sources to be used on a Youtube notability page? JRG ( talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • "but what about thinking of others?" - I am thinking about others - I'm thinking of the subject of this article who has to live with this sort of rubbish article. Sarah 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure / Comment I was asked on my talk page (prior to the opening of the DRV) to userfy this page, normally I would have no problems with such a request but as a BLP is involved and its subject, who is of marginal notability, has requested deletion, and as the closing admin had already declined such a request, I didn't see a reason to accede to it. Orderinchaos 09:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure IIRC, she also personally requested that the page be deleted in previous discussions. I personally think we should honor her wishes and her privacy. -- Arnzy ( talk · contribs) 10:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and no userfication per WP:BLP. Stifle ( talk) 10:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Please read, everyone, and especially the closing moderator - I am not asking for this to be undeleted whatsoever - I concur with the closure that it is not notable; I want the page userfied so I can put the information elsewhere. Please note the subject requested deletion back in 2006, some years ago now, and has not edited since, and since then has also uploaded an image of herself to go along with the article. Issues relating to privacy were removed from the article and I do not intend to add them again. Please note BLP does not apply as it is about an internet meme, not a real person as such. There was discussion in the AfD about creating a Youtube memes page. Please note there is a list of youtube memes elswhere on Wikipedia which links to this page - I am only trying to link at least to the fact of the effect of Youtube security breaches. Please stop being slack and let me userfy this page. As a compromise I am willing for only the very last version of the page to be userfied and not any of the history - according to Emmalina's own wikipedia talk page the concern she had with the article was all the personal details being included on the site, not its actual existence (see here). As far as I know they have been removed - and any userfication request can have any of those details removed if they are still there. JRG ( talk) 12:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This still doesnt change my mind that this subject should stay closed and should be done and over with. Userfication because you didnt get your way originally is no reason to retrieve the information to put it where "You" want to put it. There are plenty of references to retrieve from Google or any other reliable search engine without resorting to go through the deleted content. Sure, she may seem notable only for a one or two sentence mention of her on the main youtube and/or related Youtube meme article, maybe even referenced as there are plenty of references for you to google up without having to go through the deleted history. -- Arnzy ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There is a problem with restoring the last version to your userspace and that is the GFDL. If we moved the last version of the article to your userspace it would look like Flewis wrote the whole thing in one edit and none of the actual authors would be credited with their work. Emmalina uploaded the image on 2 July, 2006 and asked for the article to be deleted on the 13 August 2006, there's no other images in her contributions or her deleted contributions, so I think you may have your timeline backwards there. Additionally, you still do not adequately explain what you intend doing with the article. The result of the AFD was very convincing and I don't think we should userfy an article deleted under BLP so that it can sit around in it's current form while you ponder what you want to do with it. Also, saying this article is not covered by BLP seems rather disingenuous to me and certainly the people at the AFD who voted delete per BLP and BLP1E disagreed with you and I'm rather sure that Emmalina would also disagree with your assertion that the article is not about a real person. Sarah 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• The request is to userfy the page. Please address comments to that DRV request. -- Suntag ☼ 15:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Do not userfy - The page was deleted and no evidence has been presented that userfying the page may lead to a Wikipedia article. Also, under Wikipedia:Userfication, material that is objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof should not be userfied. As noted above, "a BLP is involved and its subject, who is of marginal notability, has requested deletion". In addition, userfy "so I can put the information elsewhere" does not meet Wikipedia:User page. Emmalina's information already is at List of YouTube celebrities, which could use a good prose expansion. These seems to make the material objectionable as content in a user page, particularly where no evidence has been presented that userfying the page may lead to a Wikipedia article. Comment Prior to this DRV, any admin could have userfied the page depending on the administrator's judgment. The trouble with requesting userfication at DRV is that once a DRV consensus is established that the page cannot be userfied, no admin can override the consensus. -- Suntag ☼ 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin I declined userification based on the BLP concern, possibly another admin could email him the deleted material with the stipulation he run it past an admin before reposting. But I'm not sure about that. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Deleted out of policy. There is no policy for deleting in response to the subjects request. Misinterpretation of BLP. To be exact, interpreting it according to a rejected BLP policy. DGG ( talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Erm, I'm not seeing where at the AFD anyone mentioned the subject asked for deletion, nor was I aware of any request when I closed it. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • [6] & links therein. DGG ( talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • On my reading, only a couple of people referred to the subject's wish to have the article deleted in their !vote comments in that AFD. I think it's a bit much to assert that the deletion was an "out of policy" "misinterpretation of BLP", and that the article was deleted "in response to the subjects request" because a couple of people mentioned the subject's wishes in their rationale to delete. That totally dismisses, and even distorts, the rationales of the other 14 or so people who participated in the discussion and the comments by the closing admin, none of whom even mentioned the subject's wishes and instead endorsed deletion on grounds of notability and "one event". And the way the second person phrased their comment as an "also" suggests that the subject's wishes was merely a supplementary reason, rather than their primary reason for endorsing deletion. Sarah 15:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Seems to be a correct closure based on the large number of editors who all raised BLP1E concerns vs. only two who spoke in favor of keeping. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody ever specified what the blp concerns were, despite multiple requests. I gather they were something that that had been earlier inserted in the article, but was removed by the time of discussion. If they were too dangerous to stay in the history, thats dealt with by oversight, not deletion of the article. A public blogger with a self-advertising web page, who should be protected from publicity?! DGG ( talk) 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Several specifically mentioned " WP:BLP1E". This is not a BLP content concern so much as a notability concern. It means "this person is only notable for one event, and should not have an independent article." Comments such as "flash-in-the-pan youtube meme" support this position equally well. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 20:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Decline move to userspace. If this were a routine deletion request, I would normally support it. In this case, however, the subject of the page is a private individual who has specifically requested the deletion of the page. This is not George W. Bush or some other clearly public person; she's a non-notable blogger with a You Tube video. WP:BLP does not require us to delete pages just because the subject requests it but BLP does set an expectation that we will respect the privacy rights of the subject of biographies. If she were clearly notable, it would be different. The AfD decision on that point, however, was clear. Having determined that she's not notable, we have no good reason to deny her privacy request. Rossami (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and do not userfy. Enough already. Guy ( Help!) 19:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

List of digital television stations in Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Was deleted with the reason "not a helpful presentation of this information; digital channel numbers should be integrated directly into provincial lists, not a special list to themselves", with no evidence of discussion, consensus, and I am not sure that's a candidate for speedy deletion either. ViperSnake151 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Every television station in Canada will be broadcasting in digital by 2011, which is when the cutoff date for the end of analog broadcasting in Canada is scheduled. About 90 per cent of them already have the channel assignments in place. There's already a column for the digital channel assignment in each of the "List of television stations in (PROVINCE)" lists. It duplicates the existing articles in a way that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations has never felt necessary for any other country's television stations — in other words, there quite simply isn't any need for it. Bearcat ( talk) 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, nothing in the CSD or deletion policies allows this deletion. Stifle ( talk) 10:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Stifle - that's an admin opinion, not a criteria for deletion. It can go to AfD if necessary. TravellingCari 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it was deleted 2 months ago and it stands a SNOWBALL's chance at AfD. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Do you have a link to the AfD? This is the only time this specific article has been deleted and the article has been around since May 07.-- Smashville ^talk 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hroðulf did not say that there's already been an AFD; he said that if subjected to AFD this article would fail the WP:SNOW rule. Specifically, see the part which states that if an article is speedily deleted for a reason not explicitly listed in the criteria for speedy deletion but it would almost certainly be deleted via the article deletion process anyway, there's little sense in undeleting it. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per Stifle since there was no CSD basis for the deletion. Some potentially related articles: List of digital television deployments by country, Melbourne digital television technical parameters, and Red Button (digital television). -- Suntag ☼ 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

None of those are parallel to this. List of digital television deployments by country is a misnamed article about where the regulatory aspects of digital conversion stand in different countries, Melbourne digital television technical parameters is a list of the technical aspects of the specific digital transmitters operating in Melbourne which is at best unlikely to survive the current AFD, and Red Button (digital television) is an article about a particular feature of digital television sets. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - per Stifle. No valid CSD basis. -- Smashville ^talk 18:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion and list to AfD. The page seems to me to be a pretty indiscriminate directory listing (a violation of WP:NOT) and I doubt that it will survive AfD but it clearly did not meet any of the deliberately narrow CSD criteria. Rossami (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Under WP:SNOW, there's no real reason either to create or to restore an article that can never be anything more than a duplication of existing content. Canadian television is not and never will be divided into separate classes of digital and non-digital broadcasters. The only distinction that exists is "stations whose digital transmitters have already begun operation" and "stations whose digital transmitters will be coming online in 2009 or 2010" (a group which encompasses every single television station that isn't part of the first group), and we don't need a list for that. The list provides no information that isn't already present in other articles. It's organized on the basis of a distinction that only temporarily excludes some stations from the list, as every single television station in Canada is already in the process of converting to digital transmission. And its title isn't even particularly useful as a redirect anywhere. As such, it's simply an unnecessary content fork which serves no real purpose. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Natalie Portman's Shaved Head (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Also natalie portman's shaved head; both titles were protected after multiple A7's (the silly name probably didn't help). Requesting unsalting based upon the metric tons of press the band has gotten - e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], etc; there's more in Google News. Chubbles ( talk) 15:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt and allow recreation per Chubbles' references, there's enough independant, significant coverage to build an article. I don't know what the latest versions of those articles contained, restoring the histories might be useful then, too. -- Amalthea ^Talk 15:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation Looks like there's some good 3rd party sources now.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of iconic smokers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

AFD was No Consensus admin did not have authority to delete 204.52.215.93 ( talk) 03:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This was a misunderstanding. The original AFD was under an old page title. The page was moved to List of famous smokers and later deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous smokers (2nd nomination). The deletion log for List of iconic smokers is from some later half-hearted attempts to start a page at the original title that only contained one or two names. Please look at the discussion linked above and then decide whether filing a Deletion Review is appropriate.-- chaser - t 07:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

According to the Afd guidelines, the discussion should be done to form a concensus. With 5 keeps and 6 deletes, it's clear that there was no consensus, yet the page was deleted. Ordinarily, I wouldn't even necessarily object to that, but I believe in the case of a lack of concensus, the admin doing the delete should explain the reasoning. In this case, all that was given was "The result was delete". It's clear that I was on the "Keep" side after doing a fair bit of reading on the subject, so I ask that someone completely uninvolved with the situation take an unbiased look. Kickstart70 T C 03:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse deleteAmong the keep arguments were the award of the unimportant " Colorado Business Woman of the Year" to the founder, and the amazing "The references cited, precisely because they are not all about Emergenetics, support the policy of 'Neutral point of view'," -- these were properly discounted. The parts of the article that were justified were, indeed, about psychometrics in general, or about other tests, and nothing notable was shown about this product. Two of the keeps were spa's. A proper close. DGG ( talk) 14:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse Of the five keeps, three were SPAs (with five contribs between them). Another keep was based on the number of references, rather than their quality, and the other on an "it's useful" rationale. Four of the deletes were based on the analysis of, and searches, for, independent reliable sources, and the other two deletes were based (partially or wholly) on concerns that the article constituted spam. In addition to the six Deletes, there was one Redirect based on non-notabilty. I'm having to fill in the gaps because the closing statement was brief, but it reads to me like a sound closure and well within deletion policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as only possible outcome. The keep arguments are very weak, and consensus is not a vote-count. It is true that a closing statement would have been nice, but I don't consider it terribly necessary in this case as the decision was actually fairly obvious. I've notified the closer of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse Closing admin here, there were 7 deletes, 5 keeps, and 1 redirect. Some of the keeps tended towards OtherStuffExists and "meets policy", without showing how it met policy. The deletes presented more detailed views of policy. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdraw: Upon further review, you are right. I still think my (even a little too exhaustive) reading of webpages discussing and using this tool did prove notability, but clearly that's just proving it to me. Would still have liked a more complete deletion reason, but I'm not gonna push that point. Thanks for all of your efforts (including the closing admin, of course). -- Kickstart70 T C 03:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I contest the notion that this discussion shows consensus to delete the article, and propose that the close be overturned. Closer Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs · count) stands by their decision, on the grounds that the delete proponents (nominator + weak delete from DGG ( talk · contribs)) had the superior argument. So this DRV is a test of the competing principles of closer as consensus-assessor and closer-as-judge. the skomorokh 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my close, even if there weren't the issues of canvassing here, AfD is not a vote. Skomorokh has really not come up with any other reason that my close was incorrect other than not counting heads, to which I freely admit—AfD is a discussion based upon strength of argument. In addition to this, two of the "keep" arguments were made by those who were canvassed, and another one by an account with few edits. In the remaining arguments, DGG and Amalthea's concerns regarding sources were never really refuted, certainly not by anyone pointing out substantive source material. Nor did Skomorokh do so when asked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Again, you conflate assessing consensus with counting heads. Strawman. the skomorokh 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Hmm. Let's be fair here. What is the operational rule for administrators in closing controversial discussions? In the absence of unanimous consent or overwhelming consensus, what do we do? How, in those cases, do we "assess consensus"? Protonk ( talk) 05:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • In such a case, the admins' deletion guidelines indicate that we should evaluate rough consensus (including properly weighting opinions that were potentially canvassed or from possible single purpose accounts), to be impartial (i.e. to not close an AfD in an article one has been involved with), and to evaluate the basis in policy and fact of the arguments which have been presented. Generally, if one side has a strong policy and fact based argument, that is the side which will prevail. In this case, after looking at the discussion, the sources, and the article, it became clear that the "delete" arguments were based in policy and fact—the lack of substantive source material. The fact that this was never really refuted by those arguing to keep (which would have been as simple as presenting substantive and reliable sources) was also a substantial factor. That was the main determining factor. This was not an easy discussion to close, and did require thought and careful checking, but I do believe in the end I did come to the correct conclusion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse barring demonstration that there was a single reliable source that discussed the subject in significant depth. Consensus is reflected not just in a head-count at AFD, but also in the guidelines and policies that reflect the project's consensus in general.-- chaser - t 07:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as AfD nominator. I too think that no opinion to keep could show that the subject passed WP:N or any of the specialized notability guidelines that I checked, so per WP:DGFA#Rough consensus I think that this close was in accordance with policy. -- Amalthea ^Talk 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse many of the keeps amounted to, I know this guy and i like him. Given the canvassing, a reasonable close. But if better references to published material about his books can be found, no objection to recreating. To say my "weak delete" amounts to a keep would imply that I've been getting a rep as a rabid deletionist. DGG ( talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there does not seem to be a single "keep" which expresses a desire to save the article because the editor knows and likes the subject of the article. Instead, each states that they believe the sources are within the bounds of notability and verifiability; some say only barely so, but the point stands. What gives you the impression you've come to?-- Cast ( talk) 05:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Who is saying your weak delete "amounts to a keep"? Your - I'm sorry, tangentially relevant - comment regarding libraries was the only response in the AfD that called for deletion, and yet seems to have single-handedly justified a delete close. the skomorokh 17:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a reasonable closure; plus, if DGG recommends deletion, the article must be beyond all saving. Stifle ( talk) 10:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Because if DGG says so, then it's got to be true. No need to double-check. In fact, no need to check even once. Don't go with the facts. Go with your gut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.91.10 ( talk • contribs)
• Comment - This is about the Canadian anarchists born in 1982. There seems to be no English Wikipedia reliable sources for Bruno Masse or www.bmasse.we.bs. The rejection of the sources used in the article as not being Wikipedia reliable sources seems reasonable. If there is information on this topic, it likely is in French and not easily accessible via the Internet. For there to be a Wikipedia article on this topic, someone likely will have to do some ground work finding print source material in Canada. -- Suntag ☼ 18:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oppose closure as there was no consensus. Per wikipedia policy, we don't need any English source, sources in French are the same as for any other language.-- Sum ( talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally, the voters in previous nominations were not advised of this deletion review, I came to know it by chance.-- Sum ( talk) 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Which source (in any language) justifies inclusion of this article? Please give us a specific citation or weblink. I'm amenable to changing my !vote.-- chaser - t 22:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. To answer the nominator's question at the top of this discussion, closers are not only allowed but required to validate that the opinions offered in a deletion discussion are based in fact, policy and precedent and to weight unsupported opinions appropriately. Deletion discussions have never been about nose-counting. That's why we explicitly don't vote on these matters. In this case, the closer's decision is in keeping with the demonstrated facts and Wikipedia's policies. I find no process problems in the debate and no evidence here or in the discussion to justify overturning the discussion. This was well within reasonable administrator discretion for a closure. Rossami (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I was one of the votes that was "canvassed", and would note that I explicitly stated in my rationale that I was voting to keep in spite of, not because of, that canvassing. The existing sources in the article were most certainly sufficient basis for a notability claim, and it's not incumbent upon me to provide a detailed analysis of each individual source. I'm not going to express an opinion one way or the other here, but I do feel the need to point out that under the rationale explained here, my !vote would likely have been discounted or ignored in spite of the fact that I already addressed every concern under which it would have been dismised. Bearcat ( talk) 22:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

So Good (TVB) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

After an administrator deleted an article believing that it is a website when it is a cooking show broadcasted on a national channel, I asked him to explain but he ignored me. I feel that that speedy deletion is completely misguided as I had limited knowledge about that program at the time, and that link will prove that the show does exist as well as this, plus somebody told me that there is a Chinese Wiki article about that show Banana Jim ( talk) 16:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• A few things are going through in my mind here. To start, this is rarely a good way to get someone's attention to fix a problem you have. Being polite will get you much farther. On whether or not to restore the article I'm of two minds. On the one hand, an A7 was invalid, as it cannot apply to television shows, and none of the other CSD applied. However, on the other, to be frank, the article sucked, and could simply not have survived an AfD in that form. If the solution is amiable to you, I believe the best way to resolve this is simply to write another version of the article that, put simply, doesn't suck. You might want to try looking at the featured article of the day to get a sense of what we'd like all our articles to look like, and you'll want to make sure you're following the necessary policies and guidelines. I've notified Deb of this DRV. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. While not strictly within the speedy deletion guidelines, this article has effectively no chance of surviving an AFD, so undeleting it only to redelete it five days later would be process wonkery. Speedy deletion isn't a permanent ban on anything ever existing at that title, however, so if you want to write another version of the article, as lifebaka suggests, go right ahead. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I admit I was mistaken in thinking this was web content. However, it does seem to me that there is little meaningful content in the article as it stood when I deleted it. Obviously I would have no objection to restoring it if the contributor felt they could make improvements to bring it up to standard. Deb ( talk) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Having seen the deleted content, there is nothing worth saving, so keep it deleted, without prejudice to a better article being written by someone who does not have only limited knowledge about the program, or who can find reliable sources showing notability before writing an article. Bencherlite ^Talk 03:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The assertion of notability in this case is not based on the restaurant's no-tipping policy. Rather, the restaurant has received fairly substantial coverage in print media, most significantly in a New York Times magazine feature article. I believe this fact more than satisfies the inclusion criteria for standalone articles, according to WP:N. As for the {{ prod}}, there were two things wrong with it. First, it should been an {{ notability}}. According to WP:N, {{ prod}} should be used when appropriate sources cannot be found to demonstrate the notability of its subject. This article was appropriately sourced to the New York Times magazine. Second, User:Dr.frog failed to place an alert on my talk page, so I was unable to respond to the {{ prod}} in a timely manner. Beefyt ( talk) 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Sarah- How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Political Establishment Upside Down.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)| IfD|}}{{subst:[[Template:| article|| article]]}})

Image was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and I believe it needs a full discussion within an actual ifd to decide if it in actuality should be deleted.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I challenged via a "hangon" tag the proposed speedy deletion of the image of the book cover; but instead of my challenge facilitating there being listed a discussion, the image was simply deleted, which action I wish to appeal as a process violation, due both its lack of transparency and its lack of providing an appropriate venue of discussion.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my deletion. The image was listed as a replaceable fair use image for greater than 2 days. After that point, the instructions in the category suggest that it can be deleted as an I7. IMO, the cover image is fair use only in an article about the book. We don't have one, we just have a subsection of the palin article. We don't need an image of the book to illustrate that such a book exists and covers Mrs. Palin. Protonk ( talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd tagged the image as not replaceable upon its being uploaded, many weeks ago. Furthermore, the applicable WP policy says, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." It does not say that an entire article must be written on the item and a quick survey of Wikipedia's established practice would reveal a high percentage of cover images in the section of an article, while not illustrating an article in its entirety.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, when you say the cover was the subject of critical commentary and cite this article, you are not correct. The commentary there refers to the book, not the cover. When Lott says the portrait is flattering, he is speaking figuratively about the book, not literally about the cover. Protonk ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If you're going to start deleting instances of cover art where the commentary is not about the cover itself but about the work, you're going to be an extremely busy person. If this is the best you can come up with, I move that this very discussion be speedily closed and an appropriate ifd be opened, per established procedures.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The admin here is right...a book cover is not fair use unless the article is about the book...and it's not. A {{ hangon}} tag doesn't mean that the deletion is on hold until there is a discussion, it simply alerts the admin that the author opposes it, and you're supposed to give your reasons on the talk page. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 19:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There are all sorts of instances of cover art throughout Wikipedia used in the same manner as this one and it would be an awful precedence to now allow for their summary deletion without discussion, therefore I encourage all those who comment here to address not a criteria for deletion per se but specifically of speedy deletion.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Listed at IfD. I figured this will turn into that discussion anyway, so might as well have it there. Protonk ( talk) 20:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Article was speedy deleted as a hoax. According to the Speedy Deletion Criteria, being a hoax is a "non-criteria", and it states If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. The previous AfD (over 8 months ago) was not conclusive on whether it was a hoax and was deleted on the basis of needing more sources. Those sources have been found and the article was substantially improved, and it should not have been speedy deleted, but rather if the editor in question found it questionable it should have been brought to AfD. Banime ( talk) 14:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, see [14] Stifle ( talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment That doesn't say anything concrete about anything. And regardless, bring up what you want against the content of the article in the AfD, this is for debating the process used to delete it (a speedy which was against policy). -- Banime ( talk) 16:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion as re-creation of content deleted pursuant to an AfD discussion. If reliable sources supporting the existence of a subgenre called weedpunk have been located, please identify those sources here at deletion review so they can be evaluated. If such sources are confirmed during this deletion review, I may change my recommendation. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  The article was recreated, improved, and contained all of the sources that I had found over the past 8 months before it was wrongfully speedied. Perhaps if this was in an AfD you could view them yourself and determine. Am I going to have to go on memory to repeat all the sources or is there a way to put it up? There's over 5000 google hits, I'll go through and be back with the online sources that I've found, and I have the two issues of weedpunk published in a magazine as well. Give me a few minutes. -- Banime ( talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Ok, I could only find one of the magazines, it was in the Ask Ed: Questions and Answers with the Consigliere of Cannabis Culture article by Ed Rosenthal in the March/April 2007 issue of Cannabis Culture Magazine. From the search I found some coverage in the following places real quick: [15] [16] [17]. I'm sure there's more and I'll be looking for more, I just thought this sort of conversation should be occuring in AfD. -- Banime ( talk) 19:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Endorse. this thread over at Something Awful clearly shows this article was simply to play a prank on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are speedy deletion criteria if they're blatant and obvious hoaxes, and this one is. And even if it's not a WP:G3, it's a WP:G4 for recreated material. There's no reason we should give this joke another 5 days. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  Again, it is covered by multiple sources as stated above. At the very least it deserves a full review. It is not a hoax, but if you believe it to be one then so be it. All I know is all of the information in that article was covered by the sources, some of which I already showed here in this deletion review. If it was a hoax there would be no sources for it, simple as that. Do we just ignore them and pretend it doesn't exist? You can if you'd like I suppose, but wikipedia shouldn't. -- Banime ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • The thread also talks about making up fake sources for the article. But it doesn't matter anyways, none of the sources you listed are reliable sources. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 20:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

    • I hate to be contesting everything posted here as that gets annoying, but I will again anyway since no one else is. I believe the sources are reliable, and that seems like a perfect thing to discuss at an AfD. I am simply asking for a review of the process which wrongfully speedy deleted a hoax, which is a non-criteria for speedy deletion. I probably don't need to quote policy with most of you but I will anyway to show you exactly what I mean: "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." Emphasis is mine. The new sources brought to light should at the very least lend this a remote chance of plausibility in your minds. If you still think the article should be deleted, then fine, we can discuss that at the AfD. Again, "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process" You can rag on the content all you'd like, in an AfD. You can bring up posts from some outside website to debate the sources or whatever all you want, in an AfD. However, the way this was deleted was wrong. Hopefully this will be the last reply I hate making long walls of text, sorry!-- Banime ( talk) 20:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and take to Afd. Clearly a totally invalid speedy as hoax, and improved enough not to be a G4 re-creation. Shjould be an interesting Afd, when it gets there, but here is not the place to discuss the merits. I'm amazed that two experienced admins could have so dealt with it. I do not regard the thread mentioned above a proof for anything at all one way or another, and if it takes proof like that it needs a full discussion. That thread also mentions some real articles, and even *says* the the vandalism it wants to promote should not be specified on the thread. DGG ( talk) 01:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as vandalism (deliberate hoax), a valid speedy criterion. As with any deleted material a review based on a properly sourced user space draft is much more likely to succeed than, for example, a pile-on from the Something Awful forums. There should be no lack of admins happy to undelete to Banime's user space for rework on request. Guy ( Help!) 23:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Through my watchlist, I saw that an IP address had changed a template, and when I saw the change, I found that this page was deleted (I've replaced it with a redirect for now). Firstly, this AFD had very little commenting on it, only four. Secondly, this article, just like all articles, have room for improvement, and it is very likely that these sources ( [18] [19] [20] [21] could be used to show that the character has real world notability. Where the article redirects currently to a list of "minor characters" is a misrepresentation of the character. From what I can remember and tell from the sites I listed before, the character was indeed a major character, having appeared in about half of the series/season ( Power Rangers: Turbo) he premiered in, and there were several toys of him made for sale in the Western market. I would think that the character having and IMDb page is proof enough that there probably is plenty of independent, third party sourcing, concerning this fictional character.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. It was made into a redirect. The AfD seems appropriate. Little Red Riding Hood talk 05:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I made it into a redirect after I saw it was deleted. I believe that it can be an article in its own right.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 09:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Because I have not dealt with DRV in a long time and I don't know the nitpicky rules involved. I just thought it was where you bring a deletion that went through the various deletion processes (AFD, MFD, etc.) you disagree with to be reviewed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 09:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. Endorse deletion as there is nothing to suggest that the AFD was closed improperly or the deletion process wasn't followed. Stifle ( talk) 16:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as well. Seems to be a minor character of a children's television show. I can understand pages on the major characters of the show, but minor (and possibly even some supporting character) pages seem a bit over the top. -- Arnzy ( talk · contribs) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment This particular AfD did not really attract the proper amount attention--it's requiring superhuman abilities to really present adequate defenses to the cooky-cutter nominations, & we have insufficient superhumans at Wikipedia at the moment to respond in detail to them all; but I think the existing situation, with a paragraph in the main article and a redirect to it, is a satisfactory solution. I'd leave well enough alone. DGG ( talk) 18:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - The AfD was properly carried out. Whether the character is major or minor, no Wikipedia reliable source seems to be writing about the character. See, for example, Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Even the blurb at Blue_Senturion#Blue_Senturion is unsourced and reads like the Wikipedia editor(s) watched the show and drew on their personal knowledge to write the Wikipedia text. -- Suntag ☼ 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Process followed, close within discretion, deletion valid. MBisanz ^talk 13:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

E-Sports Entertainment Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Main reason for deletion was lack of noteworthiness yet a simple search on the subject would reveal mention in numerous publications, particularly an article in the NY Times. Community size was also mentioned but was not even remotely close to being accurate. Also, similar sites in the exact same space are also covered. I brought this up with the admin who processed the deletion, PeterSymonds, who no longer happens to be an admin and recommended I come here. Thunberg ( talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. DRV is not AFD x2. Write a new version in your User space. Little Red Riding Hood talk 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'd observe that the AFD was terminated early with a speedy delete decision, so the question here is whether or not the article was blatant advertising. There's nothing especially wrong in general with speedying an article while it's at AFD, but since the article had existed for over a year and a half, I would say overturn and revert to a version that's not an advert, with the option to relist at AFD if desired. Stifle ( talk) 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- per Stifle's arguments. It would have been so much better to let this proceed to the end. It usually is. It does not meet the requirements for G11, to be exclusively advertising--if it is notable, there's the germ of an article in there to rescue after the advertising part about the prizes is removed. There never was a proper AfD1; there needs to be DGG ( talk)
• Endorse - I can't see the deleted article, so I'll go by what I can review. The four participants and the deleting admin agreeded that the article met advertisment CSD, so it is hard not to see that as a consensus. However, feel free to repost the article minus the blatant advertising. -- Suntag ☼ 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - but allow recreation of sourced article without predejuice, provided it is not a blatant recreation of the previous advertisement article. -- Arnzy ( talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Papa Nero (song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I noticed that the article Papa Nero (song), which I had created some time ago, was deleted earlier this year. Unfortunately I have been kept away from Wikipedia for several months, and only noticed the fact now.

Please allow me to beg for the article to be restored; or at least, copied to my personal area. It appears that the reason for deletion was "non-notable". However, I would argue that it is in fact more "notable " than many other articles in Wikipedia:

1. It seems that the song was moderately popular in Italy around 1970. I would bet that more than a million people in the world still remember the song and its name.
2. As far as I know, it is the only song in the Venetian language that has got a significant media exposure (at the Sanremo Festival) and significant record sales, outside the Veneto region.
3. As such, it is an important reference in the Venetian language article, on which I have extensively worked in the past; especially about the modern usage of Venetian (which is almost dying out). In fact, I wrote the Papa Nero article mainly as an acessory of Venetian language.
4. For the same reason, the song is of more-than-usual interest to the few and scattered Venetian language speakers, Venetian emigrants and their descendants all over the world.
5. The article contained linguistic and cultural information (such as the Venetian text with English translation) that is hard to find elsewhere, especially by readers who are not Italian or Venetian speakers.

If the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia, I would still like to post it in my private home page here at my University. Unfortunately, it did not occur to me that I should save a copy... Please help. Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 23:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• The article can be restored because it was deleted via the WP:PROD process. However, you may wish to read the music notability guidelines to help improve the article to a point where it won't be nominated for deletion by another process ( AFD. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 23:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relisted, but I concur w/ UsaSatsui above that this doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. Protonk ( talk) 05:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Article has been created and deleted a number of times. However, I believe that sources that are substantively about the concept, such as [22], [23], [24] and [25] are now available and an article on the topic could be written that passes WP:NOT#DICDEF. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Has the draft been created? -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • No draft has been created. I didn't want to spend time working on it if it was not going to be approved for re-creation. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

    It usually works the other way around when an article has been deleted so many times that an admin has seen fit to prevent recreation. If you make a serviceable draft in your userspace, then it should be OK to move back. Stifle ( talk) 21:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Same from me: create a draft and bring that here. Give me a shout if you want the article userfied as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• I generally have a fairly low threshold for inclusion, but that said, this looks like an article could be written that isn't a dicdef and meets WP:GNG. But in general, you need to create it and see what happens, just like every other article. I'd be opposed a speedy delete or prod of even a moderately well written article using those sources. Hobit ( talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support Recreation While I have not seen the original article (perhaps it should be userfied just to allow a view at the article as it existed when deleted at AfD) the sources Otto4711 provides are unquestionably about the term and would enable a properly-sourced article to be written that would go above and beyond a mer dictionary definition. A first step of creating an article using these sources in user space would most certainly help. Alansohn ( talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support recreation - The term means a male crush generally characterised as a non-sexual love affair between two males. A lot of Wikipedia reliable sources have used the term in a variety of ways, See for example Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, December 17, 2004 and term orgin. A Wikipedia article on the topic could cover the the development of the term over time to give a clearer picture. Otto4711 seems to know what s/he is doing, so there doesn't seem to be a need for DRV to approve a draft. -- Suntag ☼ 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• OK, I have a basic draft, found User:Otto4711/Bromance. If that's acceptable, if a passing admin could move it to articlespace? Otto4711 ( talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ashley Todd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) The AfD closed as speedy move, (effectively a speedy keep) after only 12 hours. The opinions were pretty much evenly split between delete and keep with only a small minority favouring a move. The AfD should have been left to run the full 5 days. RMHED ( talk) 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist for the full five days. There's plenty of people who think that this is deletable for reasons other than "cover the event, not the person". Stifle ( talk) 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note from closing admin A large number of people had already weighed in on the discussion in only 12 hours. The keeps mainly focused on the fact that the event was clearly notable. However, the only item that could even potentially make this a biography on the subject relates to her mental condition--but at this point it's highly speculative, and therefore does not belong in a biography of a living person. So in sum--the event is clearly notable, but there is no way this will ever be a BLP that meets our standards. Hence, the proper course was a speedy move to an article covering the event per BLP1E. Blueboy 96 23:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist This was an AfD of possible significance, with a complicated discussion, and needs to have it. there's appropriately a rule against redirecting during a AfD discussion. DGG ( talk) 23:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Please post a link to the rule against redirecting during a AfD discussion. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Neutral Meh. The incident was notable, the person wasn't. all of the sourcing out there only allowed us to write an article about Todd with respect to this nonsense she pulled. Very little existed that would allow for a biographical sketch. It seems to me that a sensible move would be to recognize this and see that a move/rename/rewrite would eliminate most of the concerns at the AfD. Maybe the AfD shouldn't have been closed, but there wasn't anything improper about the move/rename of the article. As far as the relisting goes...sure. Relist it. But be prepared for this to not matter at all after the 4th of november. I mean like NO coverage. Less than Joe the Plumber (and he won't get any). Notability isn't temporary, but in less then two weeks we will just end up merging her article into the 2008 campaign omnibus article anyways. Keep that in mind. Protonk ( talk) 05:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Support deletion - The redirect is fine; the key content is still there, and no longer pretends to be a biography. This doesn't seem contentious.
• Ick right outcome, bad process (fish wack). speedy Relist the AfD though the same outcome is highly likely. No way the closure was in process, and IAR probably shouldn't stretch this far. Hobit ( talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist While I agree with Protonk's pragmatism, I still maintain that this rename is just a sneaky way around WP:BLP1E. People lie to the police every day, and young Ms. Todd doesn't deserve to be immortalized for it in our pages just because this lie begot a brief media circus. The lie wasn't even about another actual person, so this is entirely still a WP:BLP, just one foreshortened to cover only the biggest mistake of the subject's life! If the AfD had been allowed to go for the full five days, by then people would have seen this manufactured "notability" disappearing in our collective rearview mirrors and the outcome would have been quite different. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- The closing admin made a solid decision in this case. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Well, there was no keeping it as a pseudo-biography at its previous title and Protonk is probably right about where it will end up, given the still significant BLP issues. I vote to relist after the election when we all have a little more perspective about this. Employers won't be searching Wikipedia for background information that isn't already widely available in that time period.-- chaser - t 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn any G4 effects on the Ashley Todd article. - It is regrettable that the issue of whether an Ashley Todd biography meets Wikipeida policy remains unresloved effectively due to a speedy delete (move plus redirect). There now is no G4 basis to keep someone from recreating the Ashley Todd article. Given the different opinions at the AfD, any speedy delete of the Ashley Todd article, including a G10/BLP speedy delete, was not appropriate. We can't unring the bell, so we need to address the pickle. The Ashley Todd AfD started out adressing a biography and the move of the article to Ashley Todd mugging hoax presents a significantly different approach to the topic. The Ashley Todd AfD could not have resulted in a consensus on the Ashley Todd mugging hoax topic. Feel free to immediately list Ashley Todd mugging hoax at AfD. Also, I think it would be reasonable to notify all the participants in the Ashley Todd AfD about the Ashley Todd mugging hoax AfD. A talk page message such as

  "You participated in the Ashley Todd AfD, which ended early do the article being moved to Ashley Todd mugging hoax. The article Ashley Todd mugging hoax now is at AfD."

  would seem reasonable so long as it was placed on all the talk pages of the editors who posted at Ashley Todd AfD. -- Suntag ☼ 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist to AfD. These premature closures are not only unnecessary, they are bad for the project. Hold a debate and let it run its proper course. If we get to the same answer, fine. WP:IAR has a place but process is important. This was an inappropriate closure. Rossami (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. We don't need more bureaucracy for this article. The delete !votes mostly invoked WP:BIO1E, which is not a good reason to delete in this case, but rather to change the focus of the article because the event was not covered anywhere else in Wikipedia, even though the event itself was verifiable and sufficiently notable. Relisting would likely result in same decision or "no consensus", which would be an inferior result — all sources about Ashley Todd are still in connection with this event. VG ☎ 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse BLP1E. We've got everything relevant covered in the event article, no good reason to do anything else except process addiction.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 18:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist the AFD. There was no good reason for this one to be closed early; there was certainly no clear consensus in the AFD, for a speedy keep, rename or otherwise. It seems to me that the admin thought they could resolve the issues with the article by simply moving it to a different title, but that does not properly address the concerns over long-term notability. Allowing a full five days of discussion is the only way to be sure of reaching a fair conclusion about what, if anything, to do with this article. Terraxos ( talk) 22:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: The person is not terribly notable and the event clearly was and is and will be. The way this was dealt with here was done just fine, with a lot of input from other editors. Sure, would have been nice to run the 5 days, but that's not a strict requirement. I wonder if this review request is motivated by political bias, to be honest. -- Kickstart70 T C 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly correct to move the article per WP:BLP1E. Only other viable outcome would be an outright delete which seems unlikely. I have no objection to an editorial relist, particularly after the election. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Perhaps the tide may have turned in another 4 days, but it was clear where this was heading. Todd's independent notability is an interesting subject for debate, but the move addresses the BLP1E issues. I'm sure this will be revisited post-election sooner or later, but the result for now appears within process, even if the process did not run its full course. Alansohn ( talk) 23:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn and relist Whenever we have a controversial BLP issue we should have a full AfD. This is especially true with BLP1E sort of situations where the line of BLP1E is never quite clear (and for what it is worth I suspect this really is a BLP1E but we need to have that discussion). JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Admin made the right decision though he may have taken the wrong path to get there. KnightLago ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - This was a heated discussion and all of the arguments had been heard. A tough call, to be sure, but definitely not worth overturning.-- HoboJones ( talk) 05:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse -- The reasons given for the deletion pretty much boiled down to "It violates WP:BLP1E and it's not notable." I think it should be obvious with a little thought that whenever you have an article on a person who's only notable for one notable event and the event doesn't have its own article that deletion is a careless and wasteful way to "solve" the problem, insofar as we can stretch semantics to call it "solving" the problem at all. ("Oh, dear! We've accidentally put out one of the angora sweaters out in the pile of cashmere sweaters!" "Oh, I'll solve that problem! *flamethrower* There, now we've solved the problem of an angora sweater being in the wrong pile! Angora sweater reduced to nothing, therefore nothing in the wrong place!") The remaining justification for deletion, namely the lasting notability of the event -- well, I said at the time and say now that the day after the events occur is not a sensible time to try and use our CRYSTAL balls to determine "oh, no, this will be forgotten by next week." It is next week and Google News gives over 2,600 results for "Ashley Todd". -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) My deepest apologies -- I took a closer look and realized I had left off the quotes, so that it was counting any story with "Ashley" and "Todd" in it. The results are still around 1,200, which I do not think is a very impressive statement of non-notability, certainly not one that justifies re-opening a closed AfD. -- 65.78.13.238 ( talk) 14:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Needs a proper AFD. I'm not really sure this is more than a news story. Unclear it's a topic of encyclopedic importance... or at least that the encyclopedic value outweighs the damage it will do to this person to keep this story alive for the rest of her life. At any rate, AFD can discuss that. -- Rividian ( talk) 16:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the speedy keep/move decision. Few, if any, people who voted on the AfD either way were displeased with the result -- having an article on the incident and not the person. WP:BLP1E concerns about "Cover the event, not the person," were solved with renaming. Should not get bogged down on process and the letter of the law when the end result addressed the AfD concerns. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Author and freelance journalist on China who is the first British-Indian writer to commentate extensively on China- published two books on travel to China and well known with the expat community- reliable resources are available from his publishers and articles which he has written- has has made a contribution to society that not many people have done for China. Please kindly restore his page. Much appreciated in advance. He will be famous within the expatriate and Chinese community once more recognition is gained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurpalo ( talk • contribs)

• Endorse. By definition, sources from his own articles and his publishers are not reliable. In addition, speculating that he "will be famous" doesn't establish notability either (see here. You are not allowed to use Wikipedia to promote people. If you can show some sources that discuss this person (independent of him), or his books, that's a different story. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 21:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at afd. There was a claim of significance. I don't care what order people follow the steps. But this article has now been deleted 3 times, and is so likely to be considered unacceptable, that at afd is the way to settle it. DGG ( talk) 23:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list (or PROD) per DGG. It's simple enough to see that there aren't major spam concerns there, and the article indicates importance in a number of places. I don't know how the AfD will turn out, but I'm not optimistic about it. I'd also like to note to the nominator that "will be famous" is not notability in the Wikipedian sense. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Per DGG since any valid speedy deletion criteria likely could be overcome easily and the recreations were more likely out of inexperience rather than trying to subvert Wikipedia policy. Also, Navjot Singh is a very common name, see Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Navjot Singh Sidhu, and it is difficult to conclude that this particular Navjot Singh does not meet WP:N without a discussion. Comment to nominator - information from "reliable resources are available from his publishers and articles which he has written" cannot be used in an article on Navjot Singh since that information is not independent of Navjot Singh. A Wikipedia article on Navjot Singh should be based on what other people have written about Navjot Singh. The Wikipedia article should not merely serve to memorialize Navjot Singh's work product or provide a place to host testimonials from assiciates of Navjot Singh. -- Suntag ☼ 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a reasonable A7. The most comprehensive version of the article I could find among the deleted history said that he's an British author who traveled to China and holds a Masters degree. DGG is usually really good about sorting out the invalid CSDs but I can not find any claim of significance in the deleted content, nor do I find any here. Unless someone can show me what I'm missing, this appears to have been reasonable to me. Rossami (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Contesting prod; the band charted, among other things. Chubbles ( talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The End Of An Error (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

There was a Prod placed on The End of an Error album article which was challenged so it was taken to an AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The End Of An Error) on September 6, 2008. User:Ryan Postlethwaite closed the AfD on September 11, 2008 with a "keep". Only three Editors voiced a "keep" opinion, citing links to user submitted news releases/press releases and one editor stating "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth." I feel there was not enough involvement in the discussion and it should be reopened in order to receive input that will be based on Wikipedia guidlines. While the cited sources may be fine in order to "verify" if an album was coming out they do not meet the guidelines for allowing an album to have it's own article. WP:NALBUMS states that All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG for definitions. The cited sources are links to user submitted information on the albums release date and track listing only and do not establish this album as notable nor are they significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 04:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my own closure. The consensus was fairly clear. Concerns about lack of notability are moot given that there are reliable sources available [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. So, this is a an album by a notable band, that is covered in numerous reliable sources giving it basic notability - not sure why this is at drv if I'm being honest..... Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: To answer the the last question first. It is at DRV because there was not any response from you directly on the issue. I have no issues in opening a second AfD, I just thought it would easier to reopen this one because of the short amount of time involved between the closure and when I found the article. As far as the citations go - the ones that I mention above, and now the ones you give, are not "significant coverage" enough to prove notability for allowing the album to have it's own article. Many of the citations that were given in the first AfD were based on "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." about the release of the album. The links you have provided now are a mixture however still nothing that goes beyond a short review or mention of the album's release. Even though the first Afd states the reason as "No reliable published third party sources for future album, fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums" the discussion was more about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and not about the notability of the actual release per WP:NALBUMS. The key statement from the What Wikipedia is not policy is that merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is verified that this release exists but it has not been verified that the release is notable enough for it's own article. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 13:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Relisting is only appropriate when there are at most two or three comments, and there was no other possibly correct closure. Stifle ( talk) 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Er...we're reviewing a keep result, Stifle.  :) -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I'm in the habit of typing that wrongly (-; Stifle ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This one is pretty clear-cut. Overwhelming keep majority, several sources brought out, easily the right call. Seems to me the nom just wants a second AFD. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I was not the AfD nom. I came across this album and was going to PROD it however I found it PROD and AfD a few weeks ago. If there is a specific question beyond that I have laid out above please ask. Thanks. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Reopen AfD: the fact that the majority (3 of 5) of commenters to the AfD want to keep it and ignore wp:v and wp:rs (specific question about the article's sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AbsolutePunk.net, melodic.net, Alternative Press, starpulse.com?) is beside the point. If the majority of AfD commenters want to ignore wp:blp or the GFDL that is also beside the point. Closure should be based on the policies created to make this an encyclopedia, not to turn WP into a blog or Usenet. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-26 t10:06z

• Endorse Closure. While I fully admit that the article has been somewhat poorly sourced, the sources do indeed exist, as shown by Ryan Postlethwaite. Likewise, WP:MUSIC states that "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The band itself is notable, so assuming that the article itself is at least somewhat well-sourced, it should be within reason that the article be kept. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 10:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There are currently no Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines that state that a musical release by a well known, or "notable", artist to be provided automatic "Notability" status and exclude an article about the release from having to follow guidelines. I mentioned it above but bears repeating - there were two issues brought up in the AfD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:NALBUMS. The cited sources were used to verify the album existed but did nothing to establish notability. There are a few key words in the WP:NALBUMS quote from Rwiggum - the main ones being "may have". Those words lead directly back to what I brought up at the top.
  WP:NALBUMS directly addresses how to deal with Wikipedia is not a crystal ball issue with albums: Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article. This was the only guideline issue resolved by the Afd, but it was not "discussed only in the artist's article" - it was discussed at an AfD, which is, at its core, the reason this AfD should be reopened. The key issue that was overlooked, and should have been the *only* issue being discussed at the AfD, was: All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• But this ISN'T a future release. It was released October 14th, so some of what you are saying it moot. Likewise, there ARE sources. It doesn't have a ton of them, but they do exist, as has been show in the article, the AFD, and here. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This discussion is about an AfD that was closed based on a topic that should not have been discussed in an AfD, and that was done before the album was released. That fact is not a moot point here as it relates to why, and how, the AfD was closed. All other issues have been brought up in detail already but I welcome any editor to view the articles citations and then discuss here how they establish notability for this album (not the band - not other albums - this album).
  

1. Houston Calls Release Date "user submitted news" consisting of one sentence
2. Houston Calls Track Listing "user submitted news" consisting of track listing
3. HOUSTON CALLS POST NEW SONG "user submitted news" consisting of a release of a song to the bands myspace page, the name of the album, tentative release date and that it is a follow up album.
4. End of an Error release date and track listing.
5. "Houston Calls at the end of an error" "user submitted news" consisting of brief bio on album, release date, track listing.

A bit of a timeline may be of use here: The article was created on August 6, 2008. The first three citations were added on September 5, 2008 after the PROD was removed. September 6, 2008 it was taken to AfD. On September 11 the AfD was closed with no new citations being added. Not only that but the only "External links" were to the official website, the official myspace page and the official Sonic Bids page. Because it bears repeating yet again, the notability issue was brushed aside. On October 19, 2008 the next citation was added with the comment: "While the official track listing omits "Dork Thinks He's Gonna Drown", it is actually a hidden track that plays approx. 20 minutes after the end of "The Oaks on Prince St." Also on October 19 the final citation was added. On October 21, 2008 I looked at the article and was going to PROD it for non notable per WP:NALBUMS however I saw it had already had a PROD that was contested and it had gone through the AfD process. On October 25, 2008 I started this DRV. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Unless the keep arguments were complete crap (which they weren't), there's just about no possibility for an AfD such as that to be closed as delete. No consensus is the best you can hope for, which still results in the article being kept (I personally would have leaned that way myself). Do feel free to nominate the article for AfD again after a suitable time has passed (generally, a month or two is good). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Lifebaka. At AfD1, the likelihood of reliable sources being available carrys weight. Admin's closing "use their best judgment" discretion, all the keep reasoning backed by WP:AGF, and this being AfD1, it would be difficult to say that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or that the close should be overturne and the article delete. If this were AfD2, AfD3, etc., then the actualy lack of reliable sources would be given more weight. Feel free to list at AfD2 in two months, which should be enough time to find sufficient reliable source material for the topic. -- Suntag ☼ 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Deleting admin has requested DRV. I propose restoring the artice because the article has been dramatically improved at User:Paulmcdonald/J. William Williams with additional sources and more historically significant information. Primary reason for original deletion was based on deletion of Walter J. West which has since been restored. You can read an essay about the supposed "West" precedent. Paul McDonald ( talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Moved here from WP:DRV. Sorry I didn't get this log up beforehand. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 03:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm fine with restoring it. I don't know about any "precedent" for anything. Far as I can tell, articles sourceable to third party publications get to stay. Those that aren't get deleted. Protonk ( talk) 05:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• restore I'm not sure of the quality of sourcing. The NYT article is short, but shows that they though highly of him (notable). The rest aren't as independent as I might like. But that seems fairly good for a football player of that day. I strongly suspect there were articles in local papers of the day, but those are hard to get to... So one (short) NYT piece and all the "less-than-fully-independent" sources meet GNG in my mind. Hobit ( talk) 18:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration Given Williams' role as a player and a coach in college football at a time when pro football barely received any public attention (see History of American football) and given systemic bias issues with finding sources for individuals in their prime 100 years ago, I have no issue with the quantity and quality of the sources provided in the article establishing notability. Alansohn ( talk) 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache))

Category was deleted as part of a mass CFR that was greatly expanded while the CFR was in process. While I remain unconvinced that the mass deletion was correct, for this DRV I am only addressing Category:Fictional Americans. Two currently-running CFDs, for fictional Americans by state and its subcategories and the other for fictional Americans by ethnicity are heading for near-unanimous keep closures along with the strong desire that Fictional Americans be restored as a parent. Given that consensus has clearly changed regarding this category, I ask that the CFD be overturned and the category be restored. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn or list separately (not sure if that is needed considering the current sub-cat noms, but whatever works for everyone). -- Ned Scott 05:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - If the nominated categories noted above are "kept", Then having this as the parent should be uncontroversial. - jc37 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• The CFD was open for over a month, so claims that the addition mid-CFD was improper are a bit poor. I'll have to go with a weak endorse; the other CFDs aren't relevant to this discussion. Stifle ( talk) 12:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• No claim about the propriety of the expansion was made. The current CFDs are certainly relevant as they demonstrate a shift in consensus regarding this category. When practically everyone commenting in the CFD makes a point of stating that this category should be restored, it's hard to see how that isn't relevant. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn or list separately. Inconsistent close with the general consensus on the other categories. There has indeed been a change in consensus during the discussion. DGG ( talk) 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The broad consensus for retention of the fictional Americans by state and its subcategories and fictional Americans by ethnicity categories makes a strong case for the restoration of the parent category. Alansohn ( talk) 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per User:Alansohn. Based on the discussion that took place, User:Good Olfactory's action was not unreasonable. However, had someone taken the trouble to tag all these subcats back in September, the discussion would've gone very differently. Live and learn. - Stepheng3 ( talk) 18:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Paris Hilton energy plan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) ( DRV)

POV fork (it is designed only to present Hilton's response) that would be better presented in Paris Hilton, Cultural and political image of John McCain, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements (as a counter point), or in an article about the secondary news events generated by United States presidential election, 2008.

• Hmm. This isn't really something DRV is for. Personally I have never believed in the alleged three-month rule, and it's been challenged successfully at DRV more than once. So I would recommend that you start the AfD and if you make a good enough argument I don't think it will be speedily closed. Alternately, you could just pursue a merge, which is (surely?) the likeliest outcome of an AfD at this point (and even likelier two or three weeks from now). Chick Bowen 23:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I rather think Chick is right; I cannot imagine that anyone should object to your renominating now, and I suppose that you might do well to be bold straightaway. Lest anyone should level a procedural objection, though, I suppose it can't hurt to say permit listing at AfD (I am disinclined to say list at AfD, whereby we should be seen as offering our imprimatur to the issue's being AfDed; we mean only to say that listing again should not be disfavored). Joe 05:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• There's no reason why this shouldn't be listed at AFD. Stifle ( talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Just renominate it. It's good that you should have asked, and I wish people did more often, but we';e had a number of discussions on related articles since then, and it would be good to get another consensus. Two months is not too short in the circumstances. DGG ( talk) 23:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Article was deleted by prod tag with what I believe is an invalid reason for a nationally syndicated radio show ("article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable outside the local area.") Dravecky ( talk) 16:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Since it is a contested prod it could be directly recreated but the fact is that it is still missing third party references that would assert notability. If this is fixed, I have no objections. -- Tone 17:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• References or not, a contested PROD is restorable on request. It doesn't qualify for A7. Stifle ( talk) 18:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

United World Chart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

United World Chart article was deleted by the following reason: the chart is not used by any mainstrean media or artist, so it is not notable. That's wrong. United World Chart is cited by:

• Forbes (Apr 14, 2008)] - link
• Belfast Telegraph (17 June 2007) - link
• Fergie's official press release - link
• Madonna's official press release - link
• Beyonce's official press release - link

And many more. Netrat ( talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• 'Comment The German WP considered the article for deletion and kept it [31] ; the French WP considered it and deleted it. [32] (see Harro's comment in our AfD discussion regarding the deWP rationale--they kept it to explain why thy did not use their rankings in their articles) Besides Forbes, it seems to be used by MSNBC and CBS (see the GN link for forbes). Publicists will of course use whatever they can find. Personally, though not my subject of expertise, I find it strange that it is not referred to at all in Billboardrd's web site. DGG ( talk) 17:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There's nothing strange about it. UWC and Billboard are competitors, right? Netrat ( talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Why is this only being brought to DRV now? The AFD above was last April. Stifle ( talk) 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, the AFD took place in June. And I don't see anything wrong with bringing an article to DRV if the review is based on the idea that there is more evidence in support of the subject's notability not previously considered. But see below. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • 'Cause I didn't see this before yesterday Netrat ( talk) 16:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Use of the chart by mainstrean media and artists should be cited in the mainstrean media and artists articles, not in United World Chart. An article about the United World Chart would include a chronological history of the United World Chart. Now, if you have reliable source material that writes about the United World Chart, e.g., The United World Chart was first published in xxx to fill the need xxx. Since its first publication, it has grown into xxx and xxx, please list it here. -- Suntag ☼ 20:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I am probablly not getting you right. The reason to delete UWC article was "UWC is not notable enough, since UWC is not used by any mainstrean media or artist". As you can see, that's not true. Netrat ( talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Two things here. First, endorse the AfD closure as fully correct; the keep arguments were weak and generally not persuasive, and no reliable sources were offered during the discussion. Second, feel free to recreate the article if you believe that you can write a version that will not have the same failings as the AfD'd version. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete arguments ("not notable" - which is false and "the chart is not reliable aka fake" - does not matter at all) were just as weak. Plus I don't think I can write such article from the scratch Netrat ( talk) 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• If you'd like, I'd be happy to userfy it for you as a starting point. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion but allow re-creation if a better version can be written per Lifebaka. Of the five sources cited by the original poster, three are definitely press releases, the Forbes cite appears to be a press release, and the Belfast Telegraph cite only refers to the UWC in one sentence to demonstrate the popularity of a musical group. None appear to discuss the UWC per se. The kind of sources I would like to see if the article were re-created would be articles from independent, reliable sources that discuss the United World Chart itself -- who runs it, how it is calculated, and how it is used in the music industry. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You don't understand it. Links I provided were only to demonstrate the UWC is used by media and artists, UWC is popular, and thus notable. I'm not suggesting using these documents as sources! Netrat ( talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't understand the references you have made in this review to the idea that the article was deleted because the UWC is not used by any mainstream media or artist. That idea did not even come up in the deletion discussion, as you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. I have temporarily restored the article so we can see what it looked like as of the end of that AfD discussion, but I would have to say that independent reliable sources were either few or nonexistent in the article at that time. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • I've moved it to my userspace so I can work on re-writing the article, is it OK? Feel free to delete the redirect from mainspace, as I can clearly see the lack of support for restoring of that particular version. Netrat ( talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow recreation per lifebaka. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • What was wrong with the old article anyway? Netrat ( talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • This isn't a discussion about the old article; it's a discussion about whether the deletion discussion was closed properly. It was. Stifle ( talk) 17:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Wait. Isn't this discussion is to decide if the article should be undeleted or no? Netrat ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
        • It is indeed. But Deletion Review is limited to considering whether the deletion process was followed properly. Consideration of the article isn't in scope. Stifle ( talk) 13:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow recreation as per lifebaka and Suntag. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • What was wrong with the old article anyway? Netrat ( talk) 16:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I assume from AfD discussion that the only problem with the article was the notability of its subject, right? Netrat ( talk) 16:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. From what I understand, certain charts have to be receognized by the IFPI, which the UWC is not. Therefore, it's an unofficial chart that, for all we know, could have its positions determined by a randomizer. Furthermore, there are absolutely no sources pertaining to when the UWC was begun, what its focus is (for instance, how is it that the Eagles only have one hit on this chart?), The sources cited above don't cut it, and everyone has yet to turn up a reliable source that is not trivial or a press release. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • 1) What sources support your idea that charts must be licensed? 2) Even is charts have to be licensed, it does not menan UWC is not notable just because it is not license. The subject is notable if it has good coverage in reliable sources, right? Plus media we are useing as reliable sources do you UWC as well... Netrat ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "The sources cited above don't cut it" - what sources are you referring to? Netrat ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The press releases at the top of this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. There are multiple problems with the page. First, 90% of it is devoted to chart stats, not about the chart itself. Second, as per the initial nomination, no independent reliable sources prove its notability. Third, reliability is a problem, as it's a somewhat arbitrary system of ranking. As I noted in the deletion discussion, their page clearly states that points for an album can be raised if there are "hugh [sic] sales", and they can get additional points from countries that have no official chart by being on the rest of the charts (so there are assumptions there). Songs use airplay and songs in addition to data that doesn't rely on airplay and songs (for example, chart TV shows that rely on votes), so it's inconsistent. And User:Netrat, the reason for deletion was not simply because there was no independent coverage. If you read the deletion discussion in full, a variety of users have brought up these multiple issues (and more). Even if every single artist and group used UWC data, there would still have to be independent sources stating that it's a legitimate, notable chart. Like, the only parallel I can think of is if every single sports star recommended Red Bull because it really enchances stamina, that doesn't mean that we automatically buy their word. We would look to see if there was research done to prove that fact. The same applies here. (And echoing earlier sentiments, most of the links posted previously seem to be PR pieces, or have PR pieces quoted.) SKS2K6 ( talk) 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close; keep deleted. It was properly closed after a long and vigorous AfD discussion. Waiting four months before DRV and treating it as "son of AfD" seems shady at worst and disingenuous at best. People who want a new United World Chart article should start a new article in userspace and address every single issue brought by the "delete" comments, cite the stuffing out of all of them, and then - and only then - would a recreation should be considered. B.Wind ( talk) 06:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Non notable and unofficial chart. Needs non-trivial coverage. Tosqueira ( talk) 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Criticism of Barack Obama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I wish to protest the speedy deletion of this article. I believe McWomble did it, since he was the only one expressing an interest. There have been two similar articles here that I know about, Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair, and both are healthy survivors of any previous attempts to delete them. Please, let's establish a community standard here. All three are about prominent politicians who have endured controversies that have produced notable criticisms on a number of subjects. Either all of them should stay, or all of them should go. 300wackerdrive ( talk) 15:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion I've just reviewed the deleted article and it is a blistering POV-fork that largely focuses on people and events that do not relate to Obama, but which relate to people and organizations that the public associates with him. Its a straight up POV-fork, not a split from a main article and was a valid G10 deletion. We don't take second chances with BLP material. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion purely as the one who nominated it. Obvious POV fork and attack page. This was the article's second speedy deletion, previous one was under A3. As a mere mortal I did not delete the page. McWomble ( talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If that's your only issue, then the answer is to edit the article, not delete it. This is a prominent politician, arguably nearly as famous and nearly as controversial as George W. Bush or Tony Blair. 300wackerdrive ( talk) 15:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Strong overturn deletion. "Other stuff exists" is an essay, not policy. The existence of Criticism of George W. Bush and Criticism of Tony Blair should serve as our guide here. Let 300wacker have a chance to make it into a good article. You could even try helping him. WorkerBee74 ( talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Comment. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination). Quoting GoodDamon, "The circumstantial evidence for sockpuppetry in my opinion is fairly strong, but the evidence for disruptive behavior by both accounts regardless of sockpuppetry is rock solid." McWomble ( talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Attack page, POV fork, WP:BLP, SPA, Sockpuppets, disruptive editors, etc., etc.,. ~  priyanath  ^talk 16:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - This article is an invalid content fork from the main article Barack Obama per WP:CFORK, specifically that it does not present a neutral point of view. Although come criticism articles are acceptable, these should include rebuttals or counterpoints to provide balance and a neutral point of view, and should be summarised in the main article. Additionlly, the main article is currently under article probation. Content forking should not be seen as a means to avoid article probation restrictions. Finally, WP:OtherStuffExists can be inferred from the policy on What Wikipedia is Not. in detail, Wikipedia is not a democracy, bureaucracy or governed by statute. That other articles on a topic exist does not set precedent or guideline - each is assessed on it's own merits according to consensus. I hope this provides clarification for you. Many thanks, Gazi moff 16:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Then give me a chance to work on it. It was deleted barely ten minutes after I started working on it. 300wackerdrive ( talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Apart from you working on it for 19 hours (as SheffieldSteel mentions below), I don't see why neutrally worded, balanced and well sourced content needs to be forked from the main article. What stopped you from placing the content there to begin with, in line with content guidelines and article probation restrictions? Many thanks, Gazi moff 18:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. As stated in the deletion comment, this is an attack page and a POV fork. Having reviewed the content and sources I feel it would be better to write an NPOV-compliant article from scratch than to re-create this one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Then give me a chance to work on it. It was deleted barely ten minutes after I started working on it. 300wackerdrive ( talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

User:300wackerdrive created this article and made another 13 edits to it over a 19-hour period, and is also listed as a suspected sockpuppet of WorkerBee74. My AGF meter isn't responding well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. POV fork and attack page. Personally, I think a page devoted to criticism of someone is valid if reliable sources have consistently demonstrated the validity of that criticism, making the critiques not just notable, but largely believed to be true by mainstream media. But that is the only situation in which such a POV fork would be acceptable. This one definitely didn't measure up. -- Good Damon 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Then give me a chance to work on it. It was deleted barely ten minutes after I started working on it. 300wackerdrive ( talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There's plenty of room for criticism of Barack Obama as reported by reliable sources in the main article. There is no room for debunked criticism of anyone in their BLP unless that criticism has a lasting impact on that individual's life. But I'm sure the criticism you plan to include will be of a far better quality than campaign talking points. No one would take negative campaigning into a Wikipedia article, after all. -- Good Damon 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion for all the good and sufficient reasons listed above. Bali ultimate ( talk) 18:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Urban Ministries, Inc. (UMI) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Not clear why page was deleted. It says corporate spam, but need to know process for a company to start a Wikipedia page about its history without having it deleted; other Christian publishing companies have Wikipedia pages just like ours that have not been deleted, please explain criteria; UMI is a very significant publisher in the African American community, it makes sense to have an entry on Wikipedia, but need to know how to post one in a way that will be acceptable to Wikipedia's editors; please advise Urbanministries ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The article was deleted following a proposed deletion, without explicit discussion, so it will probably be restored shortly (I haven't checked the article though). The information you've asked for can be found at Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. Cheers, Amalthea ^Talk 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Deleted via PROD months ago, but is actually notable. Famous WWII British propaganda transmitter. Will add refs. John Nagle ( talk) 03:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Restored. Not sure how to close this DRV bit, but I've restored the article and removed the prod tag. Protonk ( talk) 03:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Ginger Jolie

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

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I noticed this article was deleted; was curious; did a google search on her -- and found that she was a published author, whose book was reviewed in multiple publications, and who was interviewd at least twice. She was prominent enough to be mentioned as a guest in society gossip columns. I am going to ask for userification of Joan Sinclair to User:Geo Swan/review/Joan Sinclair. I'd like to look at the deleted article, and then decide how much effort would be required to put the article into shape to be restored to article space, and then decide if I am interested in doing so. FWIW, I played no role in the earlier article. FWIW, the deleting admin claimed A7. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• The only stable version of the article consisted of "Joan Sinclair is the author of Pink Box." and a stub tag. I'm happy to userfy, but I think you're about as good off starting from scratch on this one. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Yup, Lifebaka's got it in one. Nothing else in the article history passes BLP. Stifle ( talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Young Progressive Majority (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

You deleted this page calling it blatant advertising. There is a serious controversy involved in California right now between two organizations operating under the initials YPM. Young Progressive Majority, an offshoot of Progressive Majority (which has a page) is a legitimate non-profit with chapters around the county. Young Political Majors founder has been accused of voter fraud, with its founder being arrested this past weekend. It's important for people to be informed on these two organizations. We recently (and legally) registered over 500 new voters in the LA area. These people, watching the news, may be concerned that it was the other YPM who registered them and will look to find out if they'll be able to vote on November 4th. Topdown5 ( talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Have you read WP:SOAPBOX? Stifle ( talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oh, and Endorse. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Three separate admins deleted it as either non-notable organization or blatant advertising. I would have deleted also, and either reason will do, as the article meets both criteria for speedy. DGG ( talk) 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion all three versions read like advertisements or didn't assert any sort of significance. If you are associated with this group then Wikipedia recommends you don't write an article about it. Hut 8.5 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Accepting above view of advertising speedy delete. You also might want to read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Comment Young Progressive Majority and California Young Progressive Majority lacks sufficient reliable source material and will not find a place on Wikipedia until it does. However, Minnesota Young Progressive Majority in the news [33] [34] [35], so there may be room for an article on Minnesota Young Progressive Majority. As for the competitors, there is plenty of reliable source material to maintain a Wikipedia article on Young Political Majors. -- Suntag ☼ 06:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I live in California, and I've never heard of this organization or its controversy, and I read newspapers and news sites daily, so I went looking on news.google and can find only three hits for this name. That doesn't give me any particular good feeling about the organization's notability, nor about its controversy. Little Red Riding Hood talk 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I kind of feel like this should go to AfD, but at the same time it might be best for Topdown to try to make this a section at Young Political Majors and grow it from there. According to the Google cache version, the one cited source was an LA Times article from a few days ago, so maybe we'll be seeing more sources for this. With that in mind, I'd support allowing this as a user draft with {{ NOINDEX}} on the draft to prevent search indexing. I can't say I feel strongly about this, though. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Topdown5 presents himself as someone with a real-world agenda. This is not the purpose of wikipedia. Wait for the controversy to be history before writing this article. Support a {{ NOINDEX}}ed (wikipedia is not for advertising) userspace version, as per Ned. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle ( talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted, and the re-direct went only to the first college college where he coached. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed noconsensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. DGG ( talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I think WP:DR isn't necessary; the talk pages will do for that. Stifle ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, I was invoking WP:BRD. Stifle ( talk) 18:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I was including discussion on the talk page as a way of starting resolving the dispute, in the non-technical sense. Sorry if there was any confusion. Incidentally, I think starting BRD is very poor judgment if there is known to be objections, as there certainly was in this case from the AfD. A less overbold redirect would have at least put the name in the target article. DGG ( talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Comments 1) Cheers to Stifle for being WP:BOLD even though I disagree with the action, 2) WP:BRD states "If an issue is already under discussion or was recently discussed, people may take offense if you boldly ignore the discussion..." While this was a case of "no consensus" there was indeed a discussion and there might have been a better approach...-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Don Lee (college football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle ( talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed noconsensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. DGG ( talk) 17:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I think WP:DR isn't necessary; the talk pages will do for that. Stifle ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Bulk AFD Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Lee (college football) was closed as no consensus yet article was still deleted and re-directed. Deleting editor participated in discussion.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close, I did not delete this page, merely redirected it, which any editor can do. The redirect can be reverted if required. Not a DRV issue. Stifle ( talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment except that all of the information on this page was deleted. I contend that "deleting all of the information" is technically a "delete" -- if the information had been edited into other article then maybe that would make sense, but no effort was done to do so. Instead, the article was wiped and replaced.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The information has not been deleted; you'll find it in the article history. Stifle ( talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Moot As Stifle says, any editor can revert, and I have just done exactly that. There was a relevant discussion , which showed no consensus against keeping as a separate article. I suppose it can be discussed further through WP:DR. It does have the effect of a delete but is a separate process--which fortunately can be dealt with outside of Deletion Review. There is more than one way of removing article content, and each method has its own assigned way of restoring it. I would not have reverted a true merge, though of course anyone could have done so in that case also. DGG ( talk) 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I think WP:DR isn't necessary; the talk pages will do for that. Stifle ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Suite101logo.gif ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)| article)

This image was deleted per CSD I5, but this policy permits exceptions for articles that are still in development. the admin that tagged this for deletion never responded to my inquiries, and it took well over seven days for me to find the actual policy in my spare time. Having the article in my userspace seems to have broken the template, and for that I apologize.-- otherlleft ( talk) 14:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Well, you can always just request the image be restored when you copy the article into mainspace. I'm sure nobody will mind. Stifle ( talk) 14:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Stifle's solution sounds good to me. Feel free to just ask me when you do, and I'll restore it then for you. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for fixing the link, and that sounds like a good option to me as well.-- otherlleft ( talk) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I think this can be closed now. Stifle ( talk) 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Leone Sextus Denys Oswolf Fraudatifilius Tollemache-Tollemache de Orellana Plantagenet Tollemache-Tollemache (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

The article was deleted after this afd. But was recreated today by Giano. I am asking that the recreation be endorsed, and that the original edit history be restored to comply with the GFDL. My reasons are threefold:

1. Technically, there appears to have been some type of glitch that meant the AfD nomination did not show up on the watchlists of experienced users who had an interest in the article. (Risker [36] and Giano [37] If there's to be a deletion, we really want these people to be able to participate in the debate. A "retrial" would thus be appropriate.
2. Procedurally, only 3 delete votes and 1 redirect is a pretty shaky consensus. The closing admin's comment "delete. unsourced" is strange since the article was sourced, and lack of sourcing in not a deletion criterion on a non-BLP. Perhaps redirection is merited here, but there's no grounds to delete.
3. Content. It is verifiable (see the new source I've added from Bill Bryson's book) and neutral. If there is unverifiable or unencyclopedic material on it, then we can deal with that by normal editing or merging. In any case, that Giano has indicated a willingness to work on this, leads me to the thought that we'll end up with a great short article. Scott MacDonald ( talk) 08:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's an interesting page about a British eccentricity, I have heard of this man numerous times and was fascinated to read about the man behind the name. If he was not notable I would not have heard about him - even Bill Bryson talks of him. Wikipedia is not short of space so this article should be kept. Giano ( talk) 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn without prejudice - Giano's argument is more suited to the deletion debate itself; I believe the discussion should be re-opened because of the apparent lack of notification, and the narrowness of the margin of the !votes. It's nevertheless worth noting that AfD is not a poll, so the nearness of the Keep and Delete entries is not in itself an argument. AlexTiefling ( talk) 11:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - it does seem that something happened such that the placing of the AFD notice on the article did not register in watchlists and that therefore the subsequent discussion may not reflect a true consensus of interested parties. Nancy ^talk 11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Whatever. The deletion rational was "unsourced", which it patently is not. Addressing some of the the concerns raised at the AFD: Leone's "magniloquent name" is confirmed by the ODNB entry on his father; he could (probably should) be added to List of unusual personal names. He is included in Wikipedia:Unusual articles, and his name has been mentioned on the Wikipedia:Reference desk several times. He was mentioned in the Guinness Book of Records until fairly recently, although the nature of the record is debateable; and there are several hundred Google hits for his name. He is about as notable as A. E. J. Collins, a proper world record holder and another captain killed in the First World War (and a featured article, incidentally). -- Disinfoboxman ( talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm hardly the most die-hard admin when it comes to reconsidering my AFD closes so its extremely disappointing that no-one bothered to draw my attention to the further sourcing that came available after the deletion. In the AFD only one voice was raised in support of keeping the article and that statement was credibily challenged in the debate. At the end of the day DRV is to check the process of deletion not to discuss new evidence so the obvious solution here is to relist the article at AFD. The sourcing looks a little iffy to me so further discussion of their weight is clearly required. DRV is not the place to do that - its too technical an area and this discussion needs to go to a wider section of the community. So, if anyone cares what I would have done, I would have overturned the AFD and relisted for the necessary discussion but since no-one actually bothered to talk to me we can waste 5 days gazing at our navals and then doing something I would have happily done from the outset. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry for not contacting you. However the issue is NOT new sourcing - but rather that AfD got it wrong. "No sources" is NOT a deletion criterion - although inability to source would be (unverifiable). However, this topic (although not necessarily all the content) is certainly verifiable ("the Guinness Books of Records 1974" was mentioned in the debate). Anyway, the closing admin is supposed to look for consensus, not count sources. Arithmetically, there was a majority here. But the majority consisted of 3 voters and their arguments were incredibly weak. The nominator states "The person himself is not notable, the story behind his name IS" - well for goodness sake can't we then have an article on the notable name and story behind it? Perhaps that needs a merge somewhere, but it is no grounds for deletion. As for the correct venue, you can relist this at AfD if you want, but there's little doubt that with sourcing from the Guiness Book of Records and Bryson, it will be kept or merged, so what would the point be?-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The conclusion of the AfD was unfortunate. If I'd known of the AfD, I'd have voted keep, because I'd most certainly heard of him and I could well want to look him up. (Indeed it's not long since I did look him up -- via a search for "Tollemache" -- and was deleted to find out about him.) I'd grant that he seems utterly unnotable other than for his name, but then tens of thousands of people are utterly unnotable other than for kicking or throwing a ball around within some rectangle, and this is even before we get to pokemon and such juvenilia. If William Jefferson Clinton is " Bill Clinton", perhaps this article should be "Leone Sextus Tollemache"; though then again, as his name is his significance, perhaps it shouldn't. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• I was going to say "speedy delete the article per G4, then look at reviewing the deletion", but I'm not in the mood to generate drama. I strongly encourage users not to take the out-of-process path of baldly recreating the article because they disagree with the AFD result again; as Spartaz said, just asking him would have obtained the desired result. This discussion may as well be closed as moot. Stifle ( talk) 14:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply