Kevjumba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) (21 July 2007 AfD) Kevin Wu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) (3 January 2008 AfD) <-- Deletion review of this one. KevJumba (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) (22 July 2008 AfD)

I have found sources for this article, which was deleted for lacking notability. The article currently exists at Kevjumba, but our naming conventions say it should be at Kevin Wu. Kevin Wu was protected after the last deletion because of repeated recreation. There are two relevant AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Wu. The first says it can be recreated if sources are found, the second is a normal delete. I don't really want Kevin Wu undeleted, I want it inprotected so I can move Kevjumba over to it. I asked the admin who did it, and he said to come here. [1] Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per most recent AfD in January, which was pretty decisive. It's also generally considered bad form to re-create something under another title which is deleted by consus and protected under the normal title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I wan't the one who recreated it, it was done by a newbie. I saw it was recreated, and decided to check out if his notability had changed. It had, so I added the refs and brought it here. What would have been good form? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• A userspace draft would have been nice. Also, the most significant difference between the current article and the old one is a claimed appareance on a CW show whose article says it was the network's lowest-rated show ever and only 3 episodes ever aired. Not enough to overturn January's AfD, methinks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• The biggest difference is the seven independant sources that came out since the last AfD. His notability isn't based on appearing in the show, it's based on coverage. Like this one. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Also see User:Tlogmer/Kevjumba. -- Suntag ☼ 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Given the sourcing since the last AfD, I'd say that new deletions should head there again. So, my official stance is don't G4 the current article. I've moved it the proper title and left Kevjumba as a redirect. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 18:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation - The article now has sources that overcome the 3 January 2008 AfD and there is at least one editor (Peregrine Fisher) interested in a viable article on the topic. The other items are annoying (recreation w/o DRV review, multiple deletions, vandalism history, etc.), but Peregrine Fisher's involvement seems enough to help keep the matter under control for the time being. Another AfD couldn't hurt. -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm not really sure what the goal of this is. The AfD I closed in January was obviously supported by policy and consensus. The most recent AfD was closed properly, too (if a little suddenly). If the subject now merits an article, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the other deletions should be overturned. The article is there now, and already properly titled as far as I can see, and it's not going to be speedied as a re-creation, so what exactly is being discussed? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I originally asked the admin who had deleted Kevin Wu to unprotect it so that I could move Kevjumba to that article name. He told me to come here, so I did. One of the admins above performed the move, so I got what I wanted. i don't know if it should be marked as resolved or what. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Roly Poly (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

It was marked for deletion due to "this is an album for a band that isn't even in WP". Fine, I will add an article for the band if this article can be restored. They are certainly notable, and I've had to fight for this article in the past! They are easily more notable than many bands/albums I've seen here on WP (mostly california indie bands I've never heard of) so please give my article a chance. I can even provide more detailed information on them and their albums, ISBN and such, as I have their album. I really do NOT look forward to another "notability battle" to defend this band. They are notable, they do exist, and they did release one or more albums, and Amazon even sells "Roly Poly". Please consider the restoration of this article. Also, I logged in too late to contest it, so it got auto-erased. I had intentionally stubbed the article so I could find out as much information about this band as possible, since I live in Austin TX which is where they're from.

There is plenty of notability information on the band's previous incarnation, "Schatzi", which was formed in Oklahoma before the members moved to Austin. I believe that there is plenty enough stuff on Google (band history, member bios, etc) to create an article on both Schatzi (an article of the same name did exist at one time, although maybe unrelated-- deleted due to being an advert) and Blunderwheel. Most of what I'm talking about can be found at Mammoth Records' website, at http://mammoth.go.com/schatzi/index.html. Neat, I just also determined that I could add the band and album to the Mammoth Records article, thus giving them more WP-credibility.

Regards, Weasel5i2 ( talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

This is posted on behalf of an OTRS respondent (ticket #2008093010003436), who wishes to appeal the deletion but (for reasons withheld from public view due to the confidential nature of OTRS) cannot. The reason provided as a DRV nomination statement is as follows:

It seems all major video sharing sites are listed here, which is all the more reason BetterStream.com should be. It is a revolutionary new site that hosts higher quality video than the most video sites (youtube) and higher quality audio than most audio sites (including myspace). It also shares revenue and ad space with ALL users from day one. That's some of the notability and nobility"

Also, the deleter, Versageek, said to try back when I have mainstream approval. I wrote, "Dear Versageek, BetterStream doesn't intend on associating itself with the mainstream and intends to be listed on Wikipedia for that very reason, as a company that is defying the mainstream." and disassociating itself with the mainstream.

That's news worthy, and I've personally been covered in many articles by major newspaper and internet blogs. This content on BetterStream has more internet views than Focus Features, an international production firm listed on Wikipedia.

No opinion. Deleting administrator has been notified via other mediums. Regards, Daniel ( talk) 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment The concept of what make it notable listed above isn't what wikipedia considers notability the general standard being non-trivial coverage in multiple indepedendant reliable sources. The guides make no mention of revenue sharing, high quality video etc. with good reason. If Betterstream isn't going to let itself get coverage by the mainstream (and if it is notable I don't see how it can avoid it, you can't stop people writing about you) then it's unlikely to meet the guidelines for notability and more importantly wikipedia can't write a verifiable article, if we can't do that we can't have an article. What's more for all this attempt to avoid the mainstream, why are you interested in having an article on wikipedia? "That's news worthy.." - that's a matter of opinion, by wikipedia isn't here to report the news, it's an encyclopedia. As to personal notability without knowing who raises this, I can't look into that, but it doesn't matter for this article, it might be a reason to have an article on the person, but their business ventures don't instantly become notable as a result. As I can't see the article I can't tell if it should have been an A7 (but I note it's deleted as G11 under another guise as well.) -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted unless the nominator or someone else presents independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Stifle ( talk) 09:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse it's an admittedly new site with no evidence of rs coverage or assertion that it has received any. Valid G11 and also would have been A7, non-notable web content. Just because its "newsworthy" doesn't mean it was discussed in reliable sources. Also, legal threats don't help. Just because it's a non-profit doesn't mean it isn't spam. Endorse and salt if creator does not respect consensus if it forms here. TravellingCari 12:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion of advertorial with no evidence of meeting our inclusion criteria. Guy ( Help!) 13:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I can't help notice that this has a current Alexa ranking of over 2 million and falling--Compare Youtube (rank 3) and Hulu (rank 590)--so claims that this somehow deserves an article by default because other video sites have them are faulty at best. I'd say that any startup trying to wedge itself into the video-sharing fray at this point is coming late to the table and will have a very tough time making a name for itself among the giants in the field... but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. Bottom line: no notability, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Just sorta' thinking here, but this appears to be about Betterstream.com and not Betterstream, based on timing and the mention of the deleting admin from the former in the nomination statement. It's also far less interesting to look at.
  So, down to business. I'm afraid I'm going to have to endorse the deletion as a valid A7/ G11 speedy. I suggest getting some mainstream news coverage before recreating the article, as required by the general notability guideline. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - No information in Google news, Google books, or Google scholar. I couldn't even find a press release and there website contains no links to press coverage. I found Better StreamGenie Live Webcaster, but that is not Betterstream. Without reliable source material, there really isn't anything from which a Wikipedia article could be created. On a related note, I looked for information about founder Ben Ligeri ( Benjamin Ligeri), which resulted in Internet provides plenty of forums to discuss Cho. identifying a Benjamin Ligeri of Rehoboth, Massachusetts posting a video to a MySpace page. -- Suntag ☼ 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the original G11 deletion, could also have been speedy deleted under A7. If there actually are major newspapers which have covered this website then you need to list citations to the articles in question to prove it. Hut 8.5 06:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Hi, i'm trying to get the article titled "Tangle Creations" undeleted. I am wanting to write an article with the History, background, and different uses for the various Tangles. I'm trying not to make it sound like i'm "advertising", as I'm guessing that is why my article has been deleted. Please provide suggestions on how I can edit to keep the article up. Thanks! Tanglecreations ( talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• No comment on the deletions, but judging by your username you might want to have a look at our guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow re-creation of a well-sourced article, but do not undelete. Both versions were hopeless, with right-off-the-package sounding phrases like "delighted children of all ages" and "you too will see the endless possibilities that Tangles can serve in you and your child’s life". Tangle is a notable toy, and frankly I'm surprised we didn't already have an article on it, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and content such as the previous versions is unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted and salted until a reasonable userspace draft is presented. Stifle ( talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion of spammy content without prejudice against re-creation by an established editor with no WP:SPA / WP:COI concerns; a userspace draft would help here. Guy ( Help!) 13:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: User:Tanglecreations has been indefinitely blocked by User:Travellingcari for having a promotional username. Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Auschappoint.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| IfD | article)

I was looking through old links on my former User page ( User:Husnock) and came across this unresolved issue. Rudolf Hoess’s appointment order as Auschwitz commander was deleted about a year ago by an admin User:Butseriouslyfolks as part of a major purge of images uploaded under my previous account. At the time, there was some very bad blood on Wikipedia between myself and a lot of people and an ArbCom had recently been filed regarding a threat made against another user. I was also deployed to the Middle East and under a tremendous amount of stress and was acting like a jerk. Needless to say, I think a lot of this clouded people’s judgment about this particular image and this was fueled even further by a rash of accusations that I had knowingly stolen hundreds of images from the federal government (a page that gave most of this evidence, User:Durin/Husnock images, was later deleted for being an attack page.) Now, for the complete truth about this image: The image is a scan which I made myself when I was doing intern work at the National Archives in College Park around 1997. The scan was from the SS record of Hoess on file with NARA. According to several archivists that I have spoken to, plus my own knowledge as a historian with the National Archives myself, the scan is totally clear for any kind of publication and the only credit that should need to be given is that it was scanned from the microfiche in the SS record cabinets at college park. In fact, I scanned it at the same time as Image:EichmannSSdoc.jpg which has had no problems being on this site. Now, I don’t blame BSF or others for the initial reaction; like I said, there was a lot of bad blood and people were very upset about a lot of things most of which I caused. There were some strong words used including some implications that I was lying about even doing research at the Archives, much less being an employee of that agency. There was also a very bad situation about most of the military badge and medal images I had uploaded to this site being taken from a CD from Randolph Air Force Base which was, itself, comprosed mostly of stolen images. With all that aisde, though, in the past year I’ve cleaned up and obeyed all the rules of this site and have had absolutely no problem with anyone. So I say now that this image was not stolen, it is not a copyright violation, and I ask that we undelete it so it can be placed back into the Hoess article for others to see and study. I will be happy to answer further questions about or respond to an administrator using my nara.gove e-mail account to verify my identidy. Thank you and good night. OberRanks ( talk) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Just reupload it; the deletion was nearly a year ago. If it's properly licensed and the license is verified, there's no problem. Stifle ( talk) 09:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Same. Just reupload it, but do make sure it passes whatever the relevant criteria are (in this case, that it doesn't meet I9 in the short term, possibly the WP:NFCC in the longer term). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Just reupload it and make sure you overcome the CSD I9 reasons for the deletion. -- Suntag ☼ 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Area 58 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) yes virgina there is an area 58:

"The first SDS satellites were placed into highly elliptical "Molniya" orbits to send images from KH-11 electro-optical reconnaissance satellites back to the DCEETA/Area 58 ground station at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia (38d44m10s N, 77d09m30s W). It is possible that some later SDS satellites were placed in geosynchronous orbits and may serve as relays for other NRO satellites, such as Lacrosse." 1

or the google books The US Intelligence Community: "large windowless two-story building officially know as the Defence Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity DCEETA, and also known as Area 58. While initially Fort Belvoir site was the only downlink.." 2

NYTimes: "Orbiting the earth every 92 minutes at an altitude of between 170 and 320 miles, the satellite's signals are first transmitted to another satellite. The pictures are then retransmitted down to analysts at the Mission Ground Site, a large, windowless, two- story concrete building at Fort Belvoir, near Washington, with the cover name of Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity." http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30D10F73D5F0C708DDDA80894DD484D81 logon required

The book Deep Black also confirm the history about President Carter and operations at DCEETA.

Apparantly the link to Mr Hamre remarks was suppressed September 2008 after being active for 8 years. "www.insidedefense.com/public/award1new.asp" -- could not be found which confirmed the link between DCEETA and Area 58.

therefore, we have 3 independant sources that confirm the existance of Area 58 and its equivalence with DCEETA.

how unoriginal could i get?

As to notability, is Menwith Hill notable? is Area 51 notable? are the means and methods used to transmit Satellite Intelligence to the ground notable? Or is the question really don't spread open source secrets around?

The concept of Area 58 is falsifiable. is there any source that denies the existance of area 58? Is the explanation reasonable? Dogue ( talk) 21:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Deletion The afd identified other aspects of the article that needed improvement in addition to its questionable notability. Also, dragging Area 51 into this is not a bright idea: Area 51 is a blackops site with fame, photographs, and a few verifiable truths, not to mention a popular culture rap sheet longer than most Baytoven simphonies. I can not find a good reason to undelete, thus I am of the opinion that the article should stay red. TomStar81 ( Talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse since it could not go any other way. I think using "Area 58" as the article name is throwing everyone because the location is more widely known as "Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity center" (Defense CEETA). Wikipedia is not the place to make neogolisms popular and any article on the topic should be titled Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation and Testing Activity center. There is info on Defense CEETA, so please feel free to develop an article in user space (minus the web site/blog sources) and request that the draft be moved into article space. (On a different note, check out this Area 58) -- Suntag ☼ 21:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• As for where it would fit within Wikipedia, history.army.mil identifies Defense CEETA with Defense Language Institute, Defense Dependent School System, Defense Communications Electronics Evaluation Testing Agency, Defense Mapping Agency, National Security Agency, and Defense Logistics Agency. -- Suntag ☼ 22:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• endorse apparently is primarily original research, notability is far from clear, no issues with the AfD as it stood. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to indicate how the deletion procedure was not properly followed. It is not a venue to ask the other parent in the hope of a more favourable outcome. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • ok, I was addressing the two main issues: hoax and notability. I take it you agree now it is not a hoax. What is your 'google test'? I googled Area 58 and DCEETA, and got 16 independant references that supported 16 sentences in the article. Do you object to the Government Postion Section? "John Pike, who directs space policy for the Federation of American Scientists, believes the problem affected the ground link for the Lacrosse, not the KH-11. The primary ground link is at "Area 58," an intelligence community designation for the Defense Communication Electronics Evaluation and Test Activity at Fort Belvoir, Va., a few miles down the Potomac from Washington."[ [2]] now the Hamre statement is censored, if i scanned the hardcopy of the InsideDefense article, would that be original? what is the Wiki policy for net censored material and references?
  • As far as the name, I didn't pick it, and DCEETA is the 'cover name', how about "The Mission Ground Site". btw, it is a blackops site. The NRO has clasified the location, not the name.(note 15 in the article) [ [3]
  • if area 51 is britney spears, then area 58 is that other spears girl. Does Wiki want a cogent explanation of how and where satellite intelligence is transmitted? because all the KH11, NGA, and NRO articles have a missing link in DCEETA.
  • Suntag, if i were to write a DCEETA article with all the same facts, what assurance is there that it won't get speedily deleted for 'non-notablity'? These military types are following their orders to close Pandora's box, and they will use any euphemism. otoh, the NRO taj mahal is in Wiki. (but i'm sure they'll argue it's not 'mission critical') Dogue ( talk) 14:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • If you were to write a DCEETA article just like the one that was deleted, it would get speedy deleted under CSD G4. I don't care what the article is called, but the name of the Wikipedia article should be the most common name used by the reliable sources and I can tell you that it is not Area 58. There is reliable source info on Defense CEETA, so please feel free to develop a draft article in a user subpage using reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you want the article to stay on Wikipedia, do not use web site/blog sources. Once you are done with your draft article, return to DRV and request that the draft be moved into article space. -- Suntag ☼ 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. DRV is not AfD round two, procedure appears to have been correctly followed here. Guy ( Help!) 19:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

List of big-bust models and performers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) ( AfD 6)

The closing admin noted that "nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues." Actually several folks, including myself, mention that sourcing each entry would address those very concerns. This was the sixth AfD for the article including one that was overturned at DRV. Any OR and BLP concerns are WP:Problems that should be fixed. Also this seems to be a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia so a well-written article would actually serve our readers better than simply deleting something based on what seems to be cultural bias. WP:BLP should not be a delete hammer to rid ourselves of articles, in this case it should instead be used to move contentious entries to the talkpage until BLP concerns are addressed by better writing and sourcing to address such concerns. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I've added the following. -- Suntag ☼ 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• AfD1 - No consensus (3 August 2005)
• AfD2 - No consensus (26 October 2006)
• AfD3 - Delete (17 December 2006)
• DRV1 - Overturned and relist (22 December 2006)
• AfD4 - Keep (28 December 2006)
• AfD5 - No consensus (8 September 2007)
• AfD6 - Delete (24 September 2008)
• See also
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts - Delete 16 December 2006
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of models and performers by cup size - Delete 17 January 2008

• Endorse own deletion as a valid interpretation of the debate. Please remember that this is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle ( talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Nor even round 7. Stifle ( talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse The link above points to an earlier AfD, by the way. There was a lot of crowing about the nomination and about how the article is periodically nominated, but not much substantive argument for keeping it. The line between "fix problems and don't delete" and "these problems make the article innapropriate for wikipedia" is a very fuzzy one. There are articles where clearly no amount of improvement will result in an appropriate entry. there are articles where cleanup is obviously the best solution. But in the middle we can't just argue that cleanup can happen so therefore the article should be kept. A number of people noted that the inclusion criteria and the only real response was that these were solvable problems. That's not a compelling response to me. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, as stifle said, this isn't AfD2. It was borderline, but it seems like deletion was proper. Protonk ( talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Link to relevant AfD added. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Empty promises to add sources for a highly subjective criteria. How comes sources weren't added after all the previous AfDs? Let me quote Geometry guy's position in the RfC on notability: "There is a deadline: it arrives when someone lists the article at AfD." VG ☎ 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article was mentioned in The Sun (12 Dec 2007) Wikipedia's bust idea ever. -- Suntag ☼ 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  That's a good reference for Criticism of Wikipedia rather than the list itself. VG ☎ 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. -- Suntag ☼ 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• History undelete please for DRV discussion. Thanks -- Suntag ☼ 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• See cache. -- Suntag ☼ 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - I'm seeing nothing wrong here with the way this deletion progressed, and with the final decision (regardless of which way it went) - Alison ^❤ 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Since I actually attempted to address the nom's points in turn, I was quite surprised to find that "failure to address the nom's points" was the reason given for the closure. Whether they are addressed successfully is surely a subjective decision, not really a closure criteria? Not sure if I'm entitled to have a position here, since I participated in the AfD discussion, but I'd have been a lot happier if the closure had cited apparent consensus (though I doubt there really was any) rather than claiming the nom's position was not challenged. MadScot ( talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As was stated in the AfD one of the main contributors, who had shown a great willingness to collaborate and address problems was frustrated by the regular efforts to delete content and the article. This AfD was my first introduction to it and I see the list as certainly fixable and stated such in the discussion. The AfD, IMHO, was rather split so was surprised it wasn't called as "no consensus". If the community demands clarity for inclusion and sourcing to address BLP concerns then make that clear and assume good faith that editors will do so, I've done that on a much larger list so I know it's possible. A 3-6 month stay of execution would be reasonable to address concerns. -- Banjeboi 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but feel free to develop a user space article. After AfD#6, promises to fix may receive less weight than after AfD#1. We have Category:Big-bust models and performers, so we're not losing too much material. For list intersections, Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists indicates a need for a reliable source that addresses the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested. I think that a list such as List of adult entertainers having a reputation for large sized breasts could be a viable intersection list if the adult entertainment industry or some reliable source sets out criteria for being a large sized breasts adult entertainer and reliable sources utilize that criteria. As consensus sets out in AfD#6, the present list never came together to meet V and RS. The title of the article did not assist in this at all and the membership criteria "the consensus among many independent web sites is that a DD cup size and larger qualifies as "large" " may have poisoned the well. In response to using Juggs Magazine as a reliable source (yes, please use), Scott MacDonald posted in AfD6, "I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views)." [4] MadScott additionally pointed out that "There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust"." [5] GlassCobra also adds, "These actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts." [6]. There clearly can be a Wikipedia article on this topic. The fact that this topic is a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia means we really need to ensure that this article meets Wikipedia article standards. A good way to go about this is to create a user space article and get DRVs thumbs up on it to move it into user space. -- Suntag ☼ 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but I agree with Suntag. There is the potential for a similar, but less subjective article to be created. Epbr123 ( talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, article survived six AFDs by "keep" voters arguing that references could be obtained, yet references still never appeared. fish& karate 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn Issues of subjectivity and BLP were clearly handled in the AfD with a large set of various sources listed. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close my nomination listed inherent issues of POV, OR and unverifiability in ANY selection criteria for this. The closer rightly identified that the keep arguments did not answer the policy based reasons for the deletion nomination. DRV is not round 9 of afd.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I guess my post of 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) was invisible to yourself and the closer then? I'm rather frustrated that having restricted my own comments largely to addressing the issues raised by the nom, they were in effect ignored and apparently the large number of !votes based on "oh how demeaning" apparently swayed the closing. It's extremely frustrating to find an AfD debate closed on such thin grounds when there was no apparent consensus. MadScot ( talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't want to be rude, but maybe people are not finding your arguments convincing. You've noted a few times that people have ignored or otherwise marginalized your views on the issue. It may be possible that they considered them and then rejected them for some reason. Protonk ( talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's OK, I don't find that rude. In fact I'd rather be told my input is valueless than have it ignored altogether. At least you're acknowledging there was an attempt to address the nom's issue. MadScot ( talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't think it is valueless. And even if people don't find it persuasive it isn't valueless (people often don't find opposing arguments persuasive, unfortunately). I agree that some mention of your comments should have been made and I understand your frustration. Alternately, someone may have dismissed (fairly or unfairly) your first argument as basically WP:OSE and not noticed your second comment (which was stronger, IMO). Protonk ( talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion after several years, six(!) AFDs, and considerable editor attention, promises that the article can somehow be fixed are less than convincing. I also note that, as I noted in the AfD, a bulk of the keep votes simply said it should be kept because it's been through AfD before, while apparently ignoring that all but one of the previous debates were "delete" or "no consensus". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: A request for a history undeletion was denied due the massive number of revisions involved, so I've created User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/For DRV with the content from the most recent version (less the AfD tag and categories) for the benefit of non-admins. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - I was not aware there was any time constraints for anything to be done. This plainly boils down to "I dont like it, so it should go through as many AFD's as it takes to get rid of it" rather than edit to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C•} 02:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Inclusion criteria for the list were not well-defined. The proposed solution (sourcing every entry) might be an improvement, but it would create a hodgepodge of links to sources of a more tabloid and sensationalist, rather than reliable, nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • That seems like a pile of bad faith assumptions. This list - like so many others - is in need of tighter definitions that are clear in the lede and reliable sourcing which demonstrates the entry adheres to the list requirements. These are all fixable problems as laid out in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It's been alleged that because sourcing hasn't fully enveloped each entry over the course of each AfD that it won't happen or it's evidence that editors are adverse to this. I find this troubling as we all know that articles, generally, improve over time and the issue doesn't seem to be that sources don't exist but that they're not yet on the article. Each entry is for an existing article which evidently asserts the notability there and a quick look shows that redlinked entries were non-existent. We discourage ownership issues so why hold some "other" editors to adding sources and cleaning up WP:Problems? Even adding a few would help set a good example. Finally I will point out that I had never known the article existed until this AfD - there are likely many willing editors much more interested in teh subject who given some sound structure and good examples to follow would be willing to do the actual clean-up work. Unclear why we wouldn't encourage this. This article is arguably one of the top gateway articles to the rest of the project - instead of pointing at its faults and lamenting generalized concerns - it seems the project would benefit by turning into a good article that treats a contemporary subject encyclopedicly where others could or would not. Exactly what Wikipedia can do best. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• That might work if this was the first or second AFD to say that the sourcing was poor. This was the sixth. Requests for more time to come up with sources are a bit hollow. Stifle ( talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• My point is that this is my first AfD with this article and current editors shouldn't be judged by what previous editors failed to accomplish. And the time needed isn't to come up with sources but to come up with consensus on how to fix the criteria and then format the list to address concerns which likely entail ensuring every item is sourced. -- Banjeboi 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• How to fix the criteria. (1) Make sure that "adult entertainers" appears in the name of the article. (2) Don't use a website to source the inclusion criteria. (3) Source the inclusion criteria to (a) Juggs Magazine and/or to (b) the AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". (4) Create a table that has a column for footnotes. -- Suntag ☼ 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Exactly, these are actually constructive ways to address fixing the problems. That previous editors walked away from keep or delete AfD discussions and did not fix the article problems is not a reason to delete. This was stressed in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I disagree. If not one cares enough to completely overhaul an article that is currently outside our inclusion guidelines to one inside our inclusion guidelines, then eventually we have to ask whether on not we want to keep it. If after 5 years and 6 AfD's no one has stepped up to the plate, how long to we wait with an article that fails WP:NPOV and WP:SYN? I know the standard responses of AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline but those are rallying cries and not a reasonable way to treat an article which doesn't meet the guidelines. At what point do we take responsibility for this and say: this either gets improved to the point where we can say "revision X meets guidelines and policies" or it gets deleted? And don't say never because we do it all the time. A3 and A7 deletions are basically extreme versions of the statement "there is too much between this and an acceptable article". What happens if we have a set of clear possible criteria (like above) but Suntag doesn't want to order 100 back issues of Juggs to make the list? I certainly don't want to. Right now we have intertia in play. If this article remains, the only thing that will save it is a complete rewrite. The motivation to make that rewrite gets smaller the larger the article gets, because we have a natural inclination to make small adjustments (esp. on a wiki) or append items rather than revamp the basic idea. Maintaining this list makes it more likely that its current format is perpetuated. So do we restore it, stub it and enforce the inclusion criteria? Who is going to do that? Who will stop someone from just reverting to the old version and making and article that doesn't meet our guidelines? I'm not saying that everything which doesn't arouse instant interest should be deleted. Most articles see very little interest. I'm just suggesting that we can't keep saying that some unwieldy list like this will be magically turned into an article that meets community expectations and then call that constructive (versus deletion, which is evidently always destructive). Some time along the line we have to say "If wikipedia should have an article on this, it shouldn't be this one." Just my thoughts. Protonk ( talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• And your thoughts are valid - again these are all reasns to clean-up an article - not to delete it. If editors feel their work is continually targeted and vandalized that it's unsurprising that inertia would wane. It's not fixed yet ergo never will be so let's delete it is a terrible policy position. Our standards of what a featured article is have greatly improved even over the past few years yet we work to re-evaluate and improve striving to make articles better. There's no reason this article can't be improved to even a GA level, unless, of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes are now seen as justifiable concerns. OR, NPOV and RS issues are all WP:Problems. We fix problems not give up all hope. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Article content and deletion policies and guidelines do not require that editors continue to assume that an article will be fixed in the presence of contrary evidence. Also, arguing weakness in a delete reasoning does not mean strength in keep reasoning, particularly one not supported by sufficient factual evidence. -- Suntag ☼ 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's possibly true except that I'm stating that I'm willing to fix it if this is overturned. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, selection criteria always were subjective and subjectively based on notoriously unreliable sources at that. This article was both listcruft and porncruft and its departure improves the project. Guy ( Help!) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Obviously! Guy, perhaps you had a very sheltered childhood? It is in fact one of the most socially structured forms of autoerotic activity there is. ^[1] Again, what is the problem with lists pertaining to breast fetishism? This is the entertainment industry, and it takes years to write objective articles. Ottre 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse close. The close may have been against the consensus of the deletion debate but it is always legitimate to look behind the votes at the competing arguments. In this case, the nominator and closer both correctly point to the fact that the list was based on subjective and arbitrary admission criteria. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Which indeed are problems that should be fixed, not unfixable problems ergo we need to delete. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • And if it was the first or second AFD I would have closed accordingly. You're missing the fact that the "someone will improve it" line has been exhausted at this stage — clearly, nobody's willing to do so. Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Actually no - that seems to be the only reason to delete this and no one has fixed it yet is a terrible idea for deletion policy. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn No clear consensus for deletion, and the admin intervention here disregards the consensus of the previous AfDs. Doubtless that we will see continued AfDs and a seventh (and eighth, and ninth....) AfD will be initiated until the result is acceptable to those who want this article deleted. Alansohn ( talk) 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The consensus of the previous AFDs isn't relevant, see WP:CCC. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It most certainly is, if it is gaming the system. After how many AFD's, hasn't it become apparent that there will be no consensus about this article? Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C•} 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • If WP:CCC means a neverending cycle of deletion attempts with the excuse that consensus can change, why not recreate the exact same article after one of the attempts at deletion is successful? This type of "consensus" is completely worthless if it has no long-term value. If after a half-dozen attempts at deletion only one is successful, there is clearly no consensus here other than a determined effort to game the process. Alansohn ( talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Come on guys are arguing to undelete on the idea that the article will be improved but its had years and no-one has. The consensus is clear. I suggest you work up a sweat on an article in your userspace and bring it here for review after its been improved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This seems to really be assuming bad faith that I won't improve the article if this is overturned. I do intend to as I feel this is a case of Gaming the system as mentioned above of sending an article to AfD until the editors are repelled and you can get it deleted. If even a half the energy was put into rewriting the lede to address the stated concerns that has been put into deleting the article we'd have a good article already. The article is fixable and there are editors willing to fix it so this comes down to we don't like it so we're deleting it. That seems quite counter to the stated mission of the project. In addition this perpetually has been one of the top 100 articles out of two million so apparently its a sought after subject that our readers - who we are apparently volunteering our energy for - also want. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It's not assuming bad faith at all. He didn't say you won't try your hardest to improve the article. HE is just saying after 5 years and 6 deletion debates no one has improved the article despite constant promises. His suggestion that a userspace draft can be made and improved would seem to make everyone happy. About the gaming the system idea...I don't know what to say. We are either going to agree that deletion is a legitimate and fundamental part of wiki process or we are going to disagree. In the case that we agree, we would have to come to the conclusion that taking an article to AfD which doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion (in the nominator's mind) is legitimate. Otherwise (should we disagree) we can never reach that conclusion. Protonk ( talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Fair enough, to me there's a great benefit to working with other editors to encourage them to fix problems and what I sensed was something other than that in regrads to the articles editing. I was refering to that in conjunction with recurring AfDing. AfD is certainly a valid process but it often occurs instead of regular editing and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Being mindful that the proper subject of review is the close, I have to conclude that the closure of this AfD was within the range of what I consider to be closer's discretion to weigh conflicting arguments. I personally would have gone with no consensus, but I think that of the arguments actually advanced in the Afd, the deletes had slightly the better of it. I would allow userfication to Benjiboi or another interested experienced editor, and frankly, I think it would be reasonable to extend him the good faith to recreate the article without the need to return here. The policy violations of the prior list are obvious, and there has been specific guidance given here as to how they might be ameliorated. I trust he will do so before returning the article to main space. It's not as if the article won't be watched closely in any event. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I actually have plenty of projects already on hold so would not like it userfied. I see no reason to not let all those who are interested to help in fixing it. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure -- nothing improper about the close or delete. The arguments were spurious, not based on policy, and it's clear that after six AfD's, the reason it doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:OR is because sourcing does not and cannot exist for such a list. -- Logical  Premise  ^Ergo? 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You are simply mistaken. Once an agreed upon criteria for inclusion is determined items are either sourced or not. Sources certainly can be sussed out but they are directly tied to the criteria set forth in the lede. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. There was no greater consensus for deletion of this article than in previous precedents. Claims that policy was better argued by one side or another are simply spurious: policy arises out of consensus. It is not a law given to set boundaries to possible consensus. There was no consensus to delete this, and if someone invokes policy to claim otherwise, that policy must yield. Moreover, the closer's "weighing of conflicting arguments" must always break in favor of keeping, and this did not. To claim otherwise essentially randomizes results by making them contingent on who decides to close it. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn And that it hasn't been improved over the last 6 AfDs isn't a reason to delete, and the AfD discussion seemed like no consensus to me. At the very very least, userfy and hand it to Benjiboi. Hobit ( talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Appreciate it but I would prefer not to have it userfied when the article can be fixed in place with any interested editors just as we do with all other articles. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Alansohn. After six AfDs, this seems less like evaluating consensus and more like gaming the system for desired results. Glass Cobra 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - no procedural error in the close. While acknowledge the project has no deadline, there comes a time, as others have said, that "keep it, I promise to work on it" ceases to be justification. That time has come and gone for this article. As for the notion that eventually there will be created by Wikipedia a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion, a) that's not our job and b) is impossible without resorting to WP:OR and W:NPOV. Otto4711 ( talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Not exactly, procedurally it was in the middling area which defaults to no consensus (keep), that the closer linked here was likely also seems telling but what's done is done. I can't speak for any past discussions or editors but current editors have expressed a willingness and interest in creating a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion. Hardly impossible. -- Banjeboi 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Really? I think if it genuinely were possible it would have been done by now, because it's been identified as a problem so often and for so long. I'd go so faras to say that if it were possible then it would have been done here and now in order to reverse a deleton largely based on the lack of any objective and verifiable seelction criterion. Guy ( Help!) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• The goal isn't to create a lengthy list - with every possible item included - but to turn this into a good list article. Just like many lists on Wikipedia this one is plagued by vagueness. That can certainly be addressed as has been mentioned numerous times. Then all items on the list are subject to that criteria. Renaming may also help. Deleting an article simply because it hasn't be fixed yet is a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I understand that things change around here and generally, banning further discussion isn't generally done. But. People. 6 AfDs? I agree with Guy in that I think if we could make this article encyclopedic, we would've done it by now (and I believe I've edited the page at least once over my time here). It's not as if the 6 deletion debates were in a one year span. We're talking over 3 years. It's actually a longer gap than I bet most editors in this discussion have been on Wikipedia. Lists based on "big", "small" and other such terms in regards to body parts are just too difficult to judge. What's big bust to one person isn't to someone else. Enough is enough. I know! We need a Del-- Woohookitty ^Woohoo! 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Article was deleted under A7, but I remember editing it and adding several news articles to it to assert notability. Whether or not the school is notable is irrelevant as it did not qualify for A7 by asserting its notability IIRC. This should be recreated (version prior to first deletion) and sent to AFD so that a proper discussion on the school's notability can be had. Chris Picone! 03:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A restore of this would necessitate an undelete of Image:Conservelogoflag.png as well. Chris Picone! 05:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion. I've restored and the prior version is now viewable in the page history. A lot of advertising and a bit of copyvio was inserted in this diff. I doubt we'll hear any copyright complaints, since the IP traces back to the school! Despite this, A7 deletion doesn't apply to high schools, about which there's been significant controversy in Wikipedia's history. This high school, though small, has a unique mission and there's at least this news coverage about one of its internal programs. It would stand a decent chance at AFD.-- chaser - t 04:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Thanks for the history undelete. Anyway, I used to attend the school and worked with the staff to remove copyright violations and POV sections when I was there. If the school continues to add POV if restored, I'm sure I can call a teacher who will talk to the staff (they were the ones editing, IIRC). Also worth noting: the user Stefan.Anderson is the school's headmaster. Chris Picone! 04:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Same as above, schools explicitly do not qualify for A7. Overturn on that basis. lifebaka ++ 12:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, schools aren't an A7. Stifle ( talk) 13:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn in view of the deletion history for this article and above assertions of controversial A7 deletion, it may be better to have an AfD discussion on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A7 reads "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." In other words, schools do qualify for A7, but if the particular A7 school deletion is controversial, then list the article at Articles for deletion instead. It doesn't seem reasonable to say that all school articles contain a reasonable indication of why the school might be important or significant. As now worded, A7 does not provide an exception for all schools. If there was consensus that all schools (or, more precisely, primary and secondary schools but not Joe's school of auto repair) should an A7 exception, then that should be explicitly provided in A7. -- Suntag ☼ 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The text means that schools, as well as a bunch of other things, do not qualify for speedy deletion under A7. Actual text can be worked on at WT:CSD. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 17:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)] reply

Yep. Deleting school articles is very controversial around these parts. :) I've been here since December 2004 and even then it was controversial. -- Woohookitty ^Woohoo! 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Schools do not come under the A7 speedy criteria. The wording of the A7 criteria was geared to say that controversial topics should not be speedied under that criteria, with schools used as an example of a topic that is always controversial. There is a good reason for this in that most high schools get kept at AFD while most primary/elementary schools get merged/redirected. Davewild ( talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Schools are not within A7 speedy and that disposes of it under the present rules. They can of course be changed. Even without that rule, this would not conceivably be an A7 lack of notability. It's a secondary boarding school of substantial size and distinctive nature. Through all the fluctuations on schools, it would have probably been kept at AfD. The present Del Rev is an illustration of our wisdom in keeping these out of A7. There's a discussion at WT:CSD, & I think this rule will stay. (but it is fair to note that the version actually deleted was an attack page replaced by a minimal stub--school pages are however frequently subject to such vandalism.) DGG ( talk) 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The deletion we're actually contesting isn't the attack page one, but the one before that. I didn't restore the attack page revision.-- chaser - t 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as has been said above, schools do not qualify for A7. Whether the school is notable or not is a seperate issue that should be addressed through another deletion process (PROD, AFD). The current version certainly could be cleaned up. Hut 8.5 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I usually don't like high school articles much and I don't like to trump another administrator. But in this case, the process followed was clearly incorrect. I think this should go over to AfD for further discussion. I'm always leery of speedies for articles that have been relatively heavily edited and are also 2 years old. -- Woohookitty ^Woohoo! 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Matt Lee (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) ( AFD 2 | DRV 1 | DRV 2)

• Endorse (the deletion but could be saved): Overall I have been seeing many articles and names on lists being removed because someone has never heard of the person/band being talked about. Alone that is not a reason for deletion. Likewise the simple fact that there might be a Wiki page about the subject is not the only reason for inclusion either. Original author aside for a moment, if one is to follow the guidelines set at WP:N you have to ask "Did this person receive Significant coverage, enough to warrant a separate article?" But we also must look at WP:PEOPLE and WP:MUSIC to fully decide as this article is about an individual, and a musician.

Under the subsection Additional criteria you will find the following: A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards and you could either look at WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER to decide. However as the subject in question is a musician you will note that it does say See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc. And this is where I feel the most important criteria comes in as it relates to this article. Under the 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' header it clearly says: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. So based on the article we are discussing I see only one real band of note - The Divine Horsemen, however their Wiki article is sadly lacking and needs to be worked on but that is another topic/issue. So I would have to say, based on the guidelines as currently written, Matt Lee should not have his own article but a re-direct to the The Divine Horsemen band page.

To address the actual article. I did not see it prior to today so I can not comment on how it looked in the past. As it reads today much of it seems like personal stories about people that the subject came in contact with rather than achievements of the subject themselves. I want to point out that being a musician while working and living in Hollywood, California will allow a person to come in contact with, and even work/collaborate with many "notable" people but does this alone mean that you are also notable? And if so to what degree? As an example contained in this article we see the subsection named Life After Punk and the section starting off with The next band was the The Mighty Hornets(1988). What follows is several lines about how the drummer was good friend with Billy Idol and goes into a story about how fans rushed the stage at one of his concerts. This, to me, does not belong in the article and does not add any notability to the subject. There are several instances of "Notability by association" in this article and one needs to step back and start to separate the more notable names being dropped and look at only the subject in the article. I find the fact he studied with Ted Greene to be notable as well as the fact he was in a high school cover band with Richard Elliot. But keep in mind the criteria, as currently laid out, for being a musician and having a separate article would not truly accept a high school cover band as being notable, nor would who you took music lessons from. I think, other than being a hard working LA based musician (Of which there are many who do not have their own Wiki article such as Kyle C Kyle, David Provost {the musician, not the mayor of New York City}, Bruce Duff while others only have a small stub that is far from complete - Nickey "Beat" Alexander and Janet Robin for example) I feel the thing that could allow Matt Lee to have his own page is this comment: Today,he does sessions on guitar, bass, and or keyboards for records,commercial and private products and projects. If the article could focus more on this and lay out notable session gigs I think the article would be a keeper. Check out Waddy Wachtel for a good example.

Soundvisions1 ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Added link to 2nd AfD, which appears to be under discussion here, and previous DRV. lifebaka ++ 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Could you please spell it out for me? Thanks. lifebaka ++ 17:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The editor who restored (copy paste from somewhere) and added the DRV tag to the page is not the same as the editor above. That person edited the earlier DRV with a keep comment. The edit above looks like they are just giving advice on how the article could be improved to avoid future deletion, whilst endorsing the deletion of the article as it stands. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I figure something like that too. If that's the case, and no issues with the deletions are being raised, this can be closed. I do suggest putting the above on the creator's talk page, though. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 19:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• He's got a major release coming out in December on HepCat records with a band that has a song in a major movie release as well. Does that count? Go to the IMDB credit he has on this wikisite for Bikini Island. Go to the FAQS section and the song is listed there. I am told a major movie does count. Please let me know if I'm wrong.( Joeyboyee ( talk) 20:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

  See wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The FAQ section of IMDB is user editable and not fact checked, so isn't considered a reliable source e.g. I could go and edit it to say anything I wanted. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 20:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If you've got some reliable sources showing that he meets either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for musicians then I suggest you create a userspace version of the article (at a title that's nice and easy, such as User:Joeyboyee/Matt Lee) and work on it there. Then, when you believe it meets all the relevant guidelines, bring it back here to open up another DRV (or just in this one if it's still running) and have some people take a look at it. If consensus is that it no longer has the issues laid out in the 2nd AfD above, it'll get moved back into the mainspace. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 23:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thank you Lifebaka. That helps. I want to point out that the address 82.7.39.174 that said wiki is not a crystal ball is the kind of person that makes this process so annoying. Those kind of comments are not courteous or constructive. I move to put 82.7.39.174's page up for AfD, or at least that last comment. The fact is I have seen that stupid movie and the credit for the song Shot Down is in the film. If they don't have a website for the movie or credits to your guidelines and liking, my question is, can I submit a hard copy of the credit? I can scan a page of the the film's last frames showing the credit. ( Joeyboyee ( talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

By the way 82.7.39.174, does'nt your comment remind you of the fact that wiki is set up the same way as IMDB? You can edit BOTH to your heart,if you have one's content.( Joeyboyee ( talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)) reply

You should be able to reference the film itself, actually. Or at least the credits. A reliable website would also be ideal, but not required. Also, rather ironically, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, since it has user-generated content. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Did you follow the link I provided? It's a core policy on the matter and is entitled "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", sorry you think pointing you to the core policy and title to it is not courteous or constructive. I cannot see how directing you to see the core policy on the matter is neither, if you are going to avoid the issues faced you need to be pointed to the approriate policies, perhaps you'd be less frustrated by the process if you didn't try and take offense by the policies or people pointing you to the appropriate places. As for wikipedia suffering the same issue as being user edited, yes I'm quite aware of that, it's why we don't accept other wikipedia projects as reliable sources and why we have such things as Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia which caution against using us as a source or Wikipedia:Academic use which goes further still. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'm wondering how many times we're going to deal with this. It was brought up last night at AN, where two more versions posted concurrently were removed and some socks blocked. Look, the article has been recreated many, many times at Matt Lee, Matt Lee (musician), [[Matt Lee {guitarist}]], and various other places. It exists right now at User:Spartaz/Musician in the condition that it has been in through most of the most recent deletions - basically, the article's been identical through the last I don't know how many recreations (and, essentially, the same since the last AFD). So, if you want to sift through those references and actually find something that indicates it's Plus, we've got obvious sockpuppet problems with this. It looks like a concerted effort to get Matt Lee a Wiki page, when really he hasn't built up the reliable references that are needed to meet notability. Mention him in the band articles, that's fine (if they're notable). But solo, I - and many others - don't feel the notability is there. Endorse multiple deletions. If someone can turn up some actual, real, good references to back up the notability, I'd reconsider. I haven't seen them yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion, the second AfD seems to have come to a pretty clear consensus to delete once the SPAs and WP:ILIKEIT arguments have been filtered out. If Lee ever becomes notable, then he can and should have an article, but not before. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC). reply
• Close this DRV The last DRV was 18 September 2008 and there has not been any material changes over the past eleven days. -- Suntag ☼ 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Revised per Spartaz's comments below. -- Suntag ☼ 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closer. Once the SPA are discounted, there is a clear consensus that this musician does not approach notability. I should point out that I'm the one who salted this repeatedly recreated article prompting (I'm guessing) this DRV. —  Coren  ^(talk) 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment I closed the previous DRV because an ip editor was using it as a platform to attack good faith editors. The close was procedural and does not preclude a proper DRV running. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, deletion process followed correctly, WP:SPAs are counselled that obsessively re-creating content and using sock/meatpuppets in deletion debates may have the exact opposite of the desired effect. Guy ( Help!) 13:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The closer interpreted AfD 2nd correctly. -- Suntag ☼ 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted, no clear and convincing reason presented why any of the previous consensi should be disregarded. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters ( | article | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)

I feel the basis of consensus needed in wikipedia is being overridden JJJ999 ( talk) 23:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) It has been a while since I used this, so I hope somebodymore versed in formatting can clean this up for me. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters reply

• This is a slightly unusual review request, because it's not really relating to any one thing that has happened. Basically, the purpose of wikipedia is consensus. The Admin in question, who I will notify in a sec, has so far replied in a way that is entirely unsatisfactory to my queries, and keeps saying "wikipedia is not a democracy". Well, yes, that is true. But that means this isn't a vote, not that wikipedia mods can disregard totally the consensus build on this site. I personally think that without exception neither side in most of these merge discussions has made much in the way of argument.
• As near as I can tell, this mass merge page is being used to circumvent previous consensus, because most people are less familiar with merge tags than with AfD ones, so very few people are participating in the discussion. This has led to several problems. Firstly, some of the decisions like the one on Cell seem to be completely against the actual consensus on the basis that "there were no good reasons with their keeps". Well, yeh, but neither side provided any reasons really. There was barely any time before it got closed anyway. Secondly, it thwarts the will of pages like Roshi, Krillin, Bulma, etc, who keep getting brought up as merger candidates "we'll relist in a month", but who survived multiple AfDs which were widely participated in. I'm not saying this is a vote, but if we've moved away from a situation that is based on consensus in wikipedia, let's move back to it. A second AfD to an article like Bulma made within 6 months would be closed instantly because of the clear consensus in previous AfDs, yet this page is effectively deleting the content and proposes to review decisions "every month".
• I really think the mods here have taken too much power in the decision making process for articles which, if they were put to an AfD like Cell would easily be defended en masse with mounds of evidence presented. They should be relisted for consensus when only 5 or so people split the vote with no reasons. The Mod shouldn't just make the decision for people.

JJJ999 ( talk) 00:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• This is not the appropriate forum for this request. Merger is not deletion, so no deletion action has taken place on these articles. There is nothing to review here. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• If you have a more appropriate forum I'm listening. Alot of these articles will be effectively deleted against consensus, review seems the most sensible place to go. JJJ999 ( talk) 00:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

He already knows these were not deleted. There was consensus for all of these merges after plenty of discussion. JJJ999 seems to have an extremely poor understanding of the entire process of merges. This merge discussion was conducted in the same manner as many many other character to list merges, and I can't help noticing that he is not complaining about any of the keep closes. He also did some extreme canvassing of 10 different editors falsely claiming that the merges are "stealth deletions" and begging them to come help him stop the "mass merging." JJJ999's actions are becoming very disruptive in this issue. All editors on the list were aware of the merge discussions as were both the Anime and manga project and the Dragon Ball taskforce. There was nothing "stealth" about it. Someone please educate him about the WP:MERGE process as he is refusing to listen to me. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• There is no such thing as canvassing in a deletion review, because the Mods decide. I merely feel it would be helpful to have some of the people involved in previous AfDs, many of whom complained last time this was tried, comment on this here so it can be seen how absurd your claim of consensus is. You've closed some votes with 5 people offering 1 line remarks 3-2! You should have relisted them until real consensus was reached, not just inserted your own point of view. Lastly, why should I oppose keeps for characters like Goku? They clearly deserve a page. JJJ999 ( talk) 01:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, there is such a thing, you can canvas in any discussion, including DR. You are asking people to come here and attempt to sway opinion to your personal point of view. That is WP:CANVAS. You are the one who is claiming that consensus is only reached if it is YOUR personal point of view. You are not opposing any other keeps or even other merges, except where YOU disagree. That discussions closed after eight days of discussion (plenty of time). These are NOT deletions, they were a merge discussion and it was all done properly per WP:MERGE, WP:CONSENSUS, and many other similar merge discussions conducted by the anime and manga project over the last few months. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• they have no power here, and I doubt the handful of people I notified is "mass canvassing". You should have relisted it for discussion with only 5 one liner votes. JJJ999 ( talk) 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

10 people who you believe will support your point of view is mass canvassing. Anyway, I'll let some admins deal with you as I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Going and canvassing modes who will agree with you like Tintor and Seripoth is also canvassing. I know which is more effective JJJ999 ( talk) 01:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please provide evidence I canvassed anyone. I have not talked with Tintor, and I neutrally asked Sephiroth to review the merge discussion closings because of your continually questioning of them (as opposed to your messages which all basically said "come help stop the merging." Sephiroth is well known for being an admin who is fair and neutral in such issues, and he would not simply agree with me just to agree with me. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close - inappropriate venue for this. There was never an AfD, hence there cannot be a deletion review. sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 01:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Wow, the guy who you already know and canvessed wants to close. I am stunend. JJJ999 ( talk) 01:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

One also has to really wonder why it is that some of them like Cell are closed so quickly on a 3-2 vote with no discussion, but others (who I suspect he wants to delete) are still going way later despite clear consensus to keep it. JJJ999 ( talk) 02:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

This is a completely procedural oppose. This is not the correct venue, and that is what my oppose is based on. sephiroth bcr ^{( converse)} 02:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

We request that the article regarding the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice be undeleted. The deletion reasons do not comport with Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Additionally, there are errors in the stated reasons for the deletion.According to the deletion discussion, there were 1. no references or additional claims of support for the notability of the organization, 2. the article failed to demonstrate that it is anything more than a student organization at a single university, 3. the Lawyers' Council is a very small organization with no reliable coverage outside their school's website and 4. it does not demonstrate that the organization is notable.

In regards to the referenced reasons: 1. The Lawyers' Council addressed the speedy deletion by stating the reasons for notability and supplying additional references at the bottom of the article. Said references included all outside sources since the Lawyers' Council is an independent organization with student and attorney chapters. The three references at the end of the article were all from third party sources - St. Thomas University School of Law, an organization that is distinct and separate from the Lawyers' Council; CBS News (WCCO); and the Minnesota Historical Society. 2. As stated in the article, the Lawyers' Council is not a student organization. It is an independent, non-profit organization which is registered as such with the Secretary of State of Minnesota. Administrators can go to the Secretary of State's website - http://da.sos.state.mn.us/minnesota/corp_inquiry-find.asp?:Norder_item_type_id=10&sm=7 and type in the name of the organization under name search and the organization's applicable business ID will appear as yet another verifiable third-party source of the organization as an independent, registered company - not a student organization. 3. The comment about the size of the Lawyers' Council is without merit or foundation and we are unclear how that assessment was made. 4. We believe the Lawyers' Council meets the notability standards and the article should be undeleted.

According to Wikipedia guidelines, notable means "attracting notice." When demonstrating notability, "material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed" The size of the organization should not be a deterent since by Wikipedia standards,"smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Organizations whose activities are local in scope can be notable if "verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found".

Attached is a link to the CBS interview regarding both the Lawyers' Council and our work on mortgage fraud. Also attached is a link to our rehearing of the Supreme Court case, Dred Scott, which was covered by the Minnesota Historical Society. Please note that a commerical usually airs prior to the CBS interview beginning.The interview begins after the commerical.

http://www.mnhs.org/newsletters/localhistory/2008/February13.htm

http://wcco.com/video/?id=32984@wcco.dayport.com

We understand that administrators must be vigilant in ensuring that organizations meet Wikipedia's notability standards but we agree with Wikipedia's policy that the standards should not be "arbitrary." Deletion should also be based on reasons that are factual. We believe that errors in the assessment of our notability occurred and request that the article be undeleted. Thank you. Lawyerscouncil ( talk) 22:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I closed the AfD on this one, where there was consensus to delete. There seems to be a WP:Role account issue with Lawyerscouncil ( talk · contribs), as well. Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As I was involved as closer of the AfD, deferring to other admins on that part of the issue and reported to WP:UAA. Cirt ( talk) 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Okay, I think there's a slight misunderstanding here. DRV is for raising process issues (mostly) with deletions, where there aren't any of here. You can see how that AfD could not, under any reasonable determination of consensus, have resulted in anything other than deletion. So, there's nothing to do here besides endorse that outcome.
  However, there are other ways to deal with this than just straight undeletion. What I suggest you do is create another article about the Council in your userspace (probably at User:Lawyerscouncil/Lawyers' Council on Social Justice) which does clearly meet the general notability guideline and/or the notability guideline for organizations, and make sure that reliable sources are provided to verify all the information in that article. Then, you can bring that article back here and, if no longer would meet the issues laid out at the AfD, it can be moved back into the mainspace.
  I also share Cirt's concern that the account above may be a role account, meaning that it is used by multiple persons. These types of accounts are not allowed, as it disguises which contributions should be attributed to each individual, so please have each person who would like to contribute here create his or her own account (if you're having issues with creating a lot of accounts, just let me know and I can help). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I endorse the deletion as procedurally correct. That said, I think Lifebaka has the correct remedy suggested above: create a new account, then create a new article in userspace. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Thank you for the conversation but it still leaves matters unclear. First, the account name can be change to reflect that it is an individual account not an account used by more than one person. That is not a problem. However, it is unclear how the "process" was followed correctly if it does not comport with Wikipedia's stated guidelines for notability. One administrator said this is not the correct place for this issue, yet Cirt, the administrator who deleted the article, said to place the issue in this forum. It is also unclear how the process was followed correctly when unsupported statements like "it's a very small organization," "it's only coverage is on the school's website" and other such errors were used as reasons for the article's deletion. In the multiple comments regarding the matter, not one administrator commented on any errors in reasoning or facts made by other administrators regarding the deletion. The concept of Wikipedia, a public source with public editors and administrators, is good but only as good as those who are making the decisions are holding themselves accountable for both the stated guidelines and the understandable errors that are made. This reads like, "we can't be wrong, so we must be right." If that's the "process" that was followed, it is not one to which anyone should proudly attach their identity. Also notable, was that Cirt's issue regarding role accounts only surfaced when the deletion was contested. Yet, another part of the "process?" In this reply, the article isn't the issue as another article can be submitted as suggested. However, if the Wikipedia's guidelines are arbitrary and challenges yield other complaints from administrators who can't admit their errors, the entire premise of public accountability fails by those who are not accountable to the very guidelines they are suppose to be administering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerscouncil ( talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The issues with the possibility of this being a role account only surfaced due to the use of "we" in the nomination statement. It, quite clearly, implies that a group is behind the account, even if just a single individual actually uses it.

I don't believe you understand the position administrators are supposed to hold. Ideally, we shouldn't be anything more than janitors who do what the community tells us. And the community, in this case, fairly obviously stated it would like the article deleted. This is why I've suggested the above, creating a new version. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 02:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I don't perceive any flaws in the deletion process, and the sources that were in the article weren't enough to show notability in my opinion. No objection to userfying the article if the account is renamed. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - The AfD closer interpreted the debate correctly. Wikipedia only is an encyclopedia and it only produces text. That's it. Text. As a result, the only thing essentially that matters is whether there is sufficient source material from third parties to maintain an article on Wikipedia. Rather than get distracted by raising other issues at DRV, sufficient source material is the area you should focus on. You mentioned three references in the article. mnhs.org newsletter says the Lawyers’ Council on Social Justice will present a mock rehearing of arguments presented in the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case. That one sentence is not enough to maintain a Wikipedia article on a topic. stthomas.edu/LCSJ.html is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is not a source that is independent of the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice since LCSJ is an organization at StThomas.edu. StThomas.edu/Inthenews.html does not appear to make any mention of Lawyers' Council on Social Justice. Google news shows no information that can be used in the article, Google books shows no information that can be used in the article, and Google scholar shows no information that can be used in the article. If you think that you can put together enough material about Lawyers' Council on Social Justice from wcco.com, please feel free to prepare a draft article in user space and present it to DRV for review. -- Suntag ☼ 06:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Minnesota Lawyer. November 9, 2007. Mark A. Cohen. University of St. Thomas School of Law hosts unusual program on mortgage fraud. says "The day was rounded off with representatives of four groups that help victims of mortgage fraud discussing their organizations and asking for volunteers. The organizations were: ACORN, Legal Aid, the Equity Stripping Taskforce, the Lawyers' Council on Social Justice and the Foreclosure Relief Law Project." -- Suntag ☼ 07:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

that sort of mention is pretty much the definition of trivial coverage. DGG ( talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. DRV is a venue to point out how the deletion process was not followed correctly. In Irish terms, think of it as the Court of Criminal Appeal. Rearguing the same points isn't what we're here to do. Stifle ( talk) 08:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

On 25 September 2008 I closed this nomination as Keep (non admin closure). I feel that my close was the correct one but today while reviewing my contributions, I noticed that I had earlier removed a speedy deletion tag (A7) from the same article and I had forgotten that I had done so. Therefore, I should not have closed this AFD. Since there was one Delete !vote I think it's only fair to him and the nominator that I request a deletion review of my own close. Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Looks fine to me. Endorse it. While I agree that you probably shouldn't have closed it, given the history, the close is correct regardless. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Ron, I have to say, I admire your thoroughness and fairness here. This article has been expanded by a couple of people, including me, since the original deletion tag. I believe it's now in good shape and belongs in wikipedia. -- Lockley ( talk) 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Was the right closure regardless of who did it and I agree with the other two comments above. Davewild ( talk) 07:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Arbiteroftruth listed the article for A7 speedy deletion two minutes after a new user created it and eleven hours after the block of Arbiteroftruth expired. When listed for A7 (Article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant), the article's first sentence was "Julius Pitzman was best known for his work as a designer of private, gated neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO." The "hangon" explaination essentially repeated what already was in the article. The new user has not made any more edits to Wikipedia. -- Suntag ☼ 13:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Since you are here ... Ron, you declined the speedy delete request saying "Speedy declined, notability asserted." A7 is about importantce/significants, not notability. Give the only delete position (besides the nom) was a clarity issue, your close of the AfD could not have gone any other way. However, you did not indicate above why you close an AfD debate for an article where you also declined to speedy delete the article. -- Suntag ☼ 13:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for responding here. In summary of your post (and so that it appears in this discussion), "WP:CSD says to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. Therefore, I was using "notability asserted" as a convenient shorthand for edit summaries. ... I had completely forgotten that I had earlier removed a speedy tag from the article and didn't realize it until last night when I was reviewing my past edits." And thanks for heading off the Pitzman/Ritzman connection. -- Suntag ☼ 16:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: Ron's being honest and thorough. The article should have been kept anyways. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. While the closer of the AfD was not strictly independent, I do not think that the outcome was affected. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment DYK has place the article's DYK nomination on hold pending the close of this deletion review. So perhaps a snow close would be appropriate? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Next time this happens, hopefully never, what I'll do is simply inform the nominator and anybody arguing for deletion of my screwup and let them file a DRV if they wish. When doing NPP you end up doing something to a lot of articles, speedy noms, maintenance tags, etc., and it's hard to remember them all. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Blatant promotion of product/Entry is not notable

I am trying to get an article on an IT company called Aqua Connect up on Wikipedia. My original post was deleted because it was deemed as a promotional tool and blatant advertising. Editor Pegasus deleted the article. The original post included information about their product and why the product was so important. For example, it explained how it lowers IT costs, is affective in reducing energy costs for businesses going green, increases security of files and computing in the work place. These are all important thing that show why the technology is significant to people and businesses today. I listened to Pegasus' request and took that section out. Following that Pegasus asked me for my references. In my original build I did not add a reference section because I did not know how to. I just included links. Now that I know how to make a proper reference section I told Pegasus that I think my article would meet Wiki's criteria. I sent Pegasus a few of my links for my sources, and he told me that they did not show why the company was notable or worthy of an article. I highly doubt that Pegasus is knowledgeable about IT companies and terminals server technology, because if he was he would not say that. This company is the FIRST company to create a terminal server for the Mac. The technology has been available for the Windows platform for quite some time now. A company called Citrix developed the technology. Aqua Connect was the company to figure it out for the Mac. How this can be deemed not notable is beyond me. In the IT world and the world of terminal servers and access virtualization, this is huge! Pegasus also commented that my references were not reliable stating that they were only blogs. Well, one of the article was a blog from ZDNet! The blog is a web page by two of the most trusted names and experts in Access Virtualization! That has to be credible. Other sources included a Computer World article, a Macsimum article, and an Ars Technica article. These are trusted names in computer technology, and they are full articles that talk about the company. How they can be dismissed is a unfair and doesn't make sense. Your articles on terminal server and access virtualization are incomplete on Wikipedia without Aqua Connect. The company deserves a page as they were the pioneers of technology that now has been adopted by many companies and institutions. I know two companies who personally use the technology. I can add even more references. This was just an initial build to get the page started so that other people could edit and add to it. I think I have done away with anything that can be seen as advertising, and have also made a valid point as to the notability of the company. Thank you for your review. I am dedicated to getting an acceptable article up on Wiki.

I think it is also important to note that the editor Pegasus has been very rude, unprofessional, and sarcastic to my responses in the talk page. Every time he offers help, he finds it necessary to add a sarcastic remark and be rude. He does not represent Wikipedia our its editors in a professional manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.162.202 ( talk) 16:39, September 26, 2008

• Overturn the last speedy deletion. In order to meet the speedy criteria the article must 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. I personally cannot see how the last version of the article does this. (It also makes an assertion of importance so would not fall under A7 criteria). Davewild ( talk) 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for the overturn vote. I have added these two links to show that I have more credible sources and that the company is very notable. One if from Yahoo Finance who picked up on the company's new product, and one is a web session for Macenterprise.org, an organization dedicated to how the Mac is being used in the enterprise:

  biz.yahoo.com, macenterprise.org

  There are so many more new and credible blogs by experts in the field, but I wanted to focus on non blog references. It should be noted though that these blog entries by devoted bloggers and experts show that the company has a great deal of significance in the IT community and deserves a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis ( talk • contribs) 18:04, September 26, 2008

• Overturn the most recent speedy deletion per Davewild (endorse all previous ones). Stifle ( talk) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and let it be discussed at afd. This is not the place. The intrinsic merits of the product however, are not really that relevant--just the degree to which it is regardedas notable by third parties, in material that is independent, and not based upon press releases. DGG ( talk) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Should I move it somewhere? Thank you for your support editors. I would say that the merits of the product are pretty relevant. Schools and businesses are moving their IT infrastructure to something called "Access Virtualization" (I am studying this in college right now). Access virtualization allows users to virtualize a desktop experience while the actual computing takes place at a central server. Many companies (VM Ware, Parallels) use access virtualization, but Aqua Connect doe s something different...they use a terminal server while the other companies use virtualization. We will see this technology implemented more and more as the push to "go green" increase in business. I know this source is a blog, but it is from ZDNet and by Dan Kusnetzky who is regarded as an expert in the virtualization field, he explains why the company and their technology is of merit: http://blogs.zdnet.com/virtualization/?p=525. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• You would be wrong to say that the merits are relevant, however. Wikipedia depends on using reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. You may have the best foobritzen in the world, but we can't just take your word on it, and we don't take the word of any Wikipedia editor on it.-- Prosfilaes ( talk) 19:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Let me see now, re-created several times, always by WP:SPAs, all versions speedied, gradually adding things to try and avoid the spedy criteria without fixing the fact that it's obvious advertorial. I say endorse and be done with it, we are being spammed and our good faith is being abused. Guy ( Help!) 19:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as deleting admin. My decision that it meets the definition of blatant advertisement is a sound one: it's been recreated and speedied multiple times by various admins under this criteria, and it's clearly being written by some with a single purpose (to promote an non-notable IT firm) on Wikipedia. Not one person has given any significant evidence to suggest that this is not a mere advertisement, and it thus clearly meets the speedy criterion for which it was deleted. Steven Walling (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I had to look this up, but my account is not a single purpose account. I'm just new to Wiki. My first article was on a Social Distortion logo. This was my second. Reason for the article is because it came up in my studies in my thesis. I've been studying IT uses in virtualization. Almost everything that I have studied, (VM Ware, Citrix, terminal servers, Microsoft's Remote Desktop Protocol) have come up in Wikipedia. I've always used Wiki as the beginning of my research throughout school. It offers a great place to start and to begin to understand terms or entities that you may not be familiar with. I thought it was interesting that this company and their pioneering software didn't come up in Wiki, and therefore thought it necessary to add them. I've been mirroring other wiki sites for companies that do similar thing such as VM Ware and Citrix, and based my original build off of those entries. My original build was much less "advertising" then those entries. I think the VM Ware one is great, it tells what the company does, why they are important, and why the software is good for business. My entry was far less of an "advertisement" then that...i even disregarded links to the company's own website to make it even less biased. Take the time to really look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and discuss at AfD. There appears to be a legitimate, yet-unsuccessful effort to create an article that meets Wikipedia's article standards. I think discussing the matter at AfD will help move this from a problem topic to one that can be improved on. -- Suntag ☼ 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Would moving it to AfD be something that I do, or does a Wiki editor do it. I looked at the AfD information page, and found it a little confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• An uninvolved admin will do this after a minimum of five days from the nomination date. Don't forget to sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• In the mean time, you should try to put together a list of reliable sources that are independent of (have no connection to) Aqua Connect. Websites and blogs won't help at AfD. Also, Aqua Connect's important actions are not so relevant. What matters is whether there is enought reliable source material to develop an article. Wikipedia calls this " Wikipedia notability" and it means "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In other words, it is the text significant coverage that makes them Wikipedia notable, not Aqua Connect actions. Independent, significant coverage is your ticket into Wikipedia and that is what you should focus on. Also, please read over WP:AGF. If taken to heart, it may help you avoid posting assumed negative observations about others. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The article makes a credible claim of notability. Issues of possible promotional wording or puffery should be addressed through editing, not speedy deletion. Alansohn ( talk) 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Baba Sehgal is very popular in India and I was quite shocked to see his page deleted despite the article having a 100 edits ranging over more than 2 years. I went through the history of the deleted edits and the article looks good until 15 June 2008, when user Navytas overwrote the article following a copyvio tag added by Mspraveen, which again was unfair as the article had been evolving the last 2 years. Plese undelete, and any anonymous edits which put the article into disrepute can be cleaned. Jay ( talk) 11:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The article was deleted three times this year, due to copyvio, and the latest as lacking notability under WP:MUSIC. Looking back to the state of the article at different points, I see there were changes made that damaged/detracted from it to get it to the state it was at time of last deletion. I'd be willing to restore it to some past point, when it was a decent-enough article. It would require somebody with knowledge of the subject to salvage it. I'll wait for consensus here but if any other admin wants to act on it now, please be my guest. -- Alexf ⁴² 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I can correct any mistakes. Jay ( talk) 01:35, 30 September 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) 13:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that. I'll follow policy next time. I'm nominating an article for undeletion after a long time, and as it is, the process looked very complicated to me. In this particular case, there were more than one administrators who deleted the article, so it's better that the discussion is in a common place like this rather than an admin's talk page. Jay ( talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You are correct. The nominator did not discuss it with the admin (me) but created this DR and left me a courtesy note about it. I commented above. I do not see the point of the DR, but as we have it open, let people discuss it. -- Alexf ⁴² 17:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the last deletion. There are several assertions of importance made in the latest version of the article thus making it not eligable for A7 speedy deletion. The standard for avoiding speedy deletion is making a, credible, assertion of importance. It is not that the article must meet the notability guidelines - that is a decision that AFD (or PROD if it is uncontroversial) should make. Davewild ( talk) 17:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The latest version of the article is not a CSD A7. The assertions of importance or significance are believable and a Google search hints that sources are to be had on this topic. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn No comment on whether actually notable, but quite sufficient assertion of it to warrant a discussion at Afd. Not an A7 speedy. DGG ( talk) 22:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn A7 does not appear to apply. Google news and Google books has some useful info, so an AfD might be better path, if needed. -- Suntag ☼ 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Stpauli2003dergan.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| IfD | article)

Oxymoron83 first orphaned this pic from 2 articles, second he vandalized the fair use rationale (see [7]) and third this admin from Germany locked the disc of User:MutterErde. Later Oxymoron83 was invited to a meeting in Berlin, but didn't come. Btw: He seems to be unknown there - not only to me. Please undelete the vandalized pic, because it was deleted by another admin without proving the image's history 78.51.238.122 ( talk) 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Ehm, what the hell? East718 isn't from Germany, and the uploader of the image was the one to "invite" Oxymoron to the meetup in Berlin. I'd also like to note that the IP which Oxymoron reverted (and called a sock of the uploader, who is a banned user) is in the same range as yours and has the exact same WHOIS profile, so... I'm rather certain we're dealing with a bad faith nom here. Beyond which, there's no valid reason given for undeletion. lifebaka ++ 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, and Pathoschild isn't German either. Blocking IP for a while for ban evasion, someone can feel free to clean this up now. lifebaka ++ 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• You should work a bit more careful. These are severe problems. I have described the case (as a German) as careful as I could.

1. The case: That pic was deleted without proofing its history by East718, but it was vandalized before by Oxymoron.
2. I wrote about locking the disc of User:MutterErde, nothing else. No Jimbo, no Pathochild, just Oxymoron
3. This is an undeletion request with a good reason, which you have avoided in your answer. Regards 78.49.56.219 ( talk) 10:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Has importance as a filmmaker forum website Indy424242 ( talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:WEB and point to how this site meets those requirements. Corvus cornix _talk 21:57, 25 September 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) 09:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I will never blame an inexperienced editor for not understanding our rules. Once it is brought here, we should discuss the issue. DGG ( talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle ( talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse all six deletions. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 12:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse as for the actual speedy deletion,since nothing is claimed beyond the existence of the site, there is no basis yet for having an article. DGG ( talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Fábio Pereira da Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Procedural nom after the request for unsalting came to my talk. What the article draft asserts and what the source provided to me says differ, and I'm not entirely comfortable with WP:ATHLETE to make the call on my own. Will be notifying all parties in a moment, as this is a procedural nom, I have no !vote. TravellingCari 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Absolutely nothing has changed since the AfD - he still fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a match. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted The common standard, as was agreed at the AFD for this article, is that until the player actually plays for the senior team they are not notable, and I see no evidence provided in the draft to contradict this and neither has a large amount of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability standard been provided. Davewild ( talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'm with both of the above right now, but since he's actually on the team it seems likely he'll play. Perhaps we should unsalt preemptively, before it's necessary? Either way that one goes, users can feel free to ping me with a ref as soon as he's played a game and I'll unsalt it (if it hasn't been already). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion (as the last deleter and salter) until he appears in a first-team match. Once he does, let me know and I'll also be glad to unsalt. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration. The "keep deleted" !votes may be technically correct per policy, but policy is a means to an end. I submit that we spend far too much collective time policing the borderlines of notability in this manner, for the purpose of ensuring that an article does not appear a couple of weeks before it is nominally supposed to (and risking biting both newbies and experienced editors in the process), all while there are many far more significant tasks that remain underperformed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this has been deleted four times over six months. I don't think we're talking a couple of weeks here. While I have little interest in the notability of athletes (or lack thereof) if one gets overturned does it turn into "well you let X, you have to let Y?" I'm thinking there may also have been deletion in another name since I haven't yet found why someone requested de-salt from me since I don't appear to have a connection with the article. This was repeated re-creation, do we reward it? OK, we give, we give. TravellingCari 02:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I came to you because according to the page log, you salted the article on 4th August. MSGJ 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • So you suggest we ignore consensus reached at AFD within consensus for the guidlines born of wider community consensus and just restore anything when asked to save us spending too much time on it? Do we extend that to crappy bands with a major tour in just a few weeks now (honest) or that imminent record deal, how about the adverts from companies who will be covered by the Times any day now etc. Many of these would end up straight back at AFD again, a nice wash rinse and repeat cycle. If this truly is a problem the solution is to fix the notability guidelines to move the border, not for DRV to declare the border isn't really there. -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted until the subject meets WP:ATHLETE. Subject fails WP:N, these entries come with no commentary and to accept them is to create a living sportsperson directory. WP:ATHLETE provides a simple rule that we should stick to. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

WTFPL (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) ( AfD 2)

(copied from Talk:WTFPL) I believe the second AfD was conducted in bad faith. Of the four keeps, the first was WP:GOOGLEHITS and failed to establish WP:N as pointed out by User:Thumperward; the second WP:PERNOM; the third suggested using WP:N was WP:GAME while failing to establish notability; and the fourth was a WP:VAGUEWAVE. None of these keeps went so far as to point to a reliable secondary source to establish notability. I understand that the editors in favor of keeping the article intend to establish notability, and I encourage them to do so as quickly as possible, but if this notability cannot be established soon then the article should be deleted beacuse articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. WP:NOTAGAIN suggests an article can be renominated for deletion as many times as necessary, given that we allow enough time for editors to improve the quality of the article after the first AfD. However, this article was first nominated for deletion over 20 months ago. In that time, the editors have not improved the quality of the article to sufficiently establish notability. Beefyt ( talk) 18:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. no evidence of meeting WP:V/WP:N was provided... the sources in the article that appear to be vaguely reliable don't even mention this license, let alone provide non-trivial coverage. The sources that do mention it seem to be directory listings or provide no prose information about the license. The closer really should have taken strength of policy-based argument into account here. -- Rividian ( talk) 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was no consensus for deletion in the AFD, nor did any of the arguments for deletion quote an overiding policy which would justify overuling the consensus of the discussion - notability is not policy and at least one of the delete supporters in the AFD said that the article was verified. This does not stop the article from being renominated after a reasonable period if more reliable sources are not added to satisfy yourself of its notability. (Note I have added a foreign language source to the external links which provides a small amount of verifiability) Davewild ( talk) 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own closure. I can't take anything other than a consensus into account here. There are reasonable sources cited in the article, and it seems clearly verifiable. (Note that the standard is verifiable, not verified.) Stifle ( talk) 21:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The standard is reliable when discussing notability. The sources consist of a handful of blog posts and some primary sources where it's listed amongst other licenses, together with about ten minor (i.e. non-Wikipedia-worthy) applications. Reliable secondary sources which discuss the license itself seemingly don't exist. The sheer ridiculousness of the argument to keep is obvious where the license's own logo is used as a reference to prove notability. AfD had too little participation to really judge consensus and the keeps are weak as discussed above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Do you mean overturn and relist or overturn and delete? Your comment "AfD had too little participation..." tends to indicate the former but it might be best if you could clarify. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I don't mind. I feel the participation was a little on the low side, but I believe the argument to delete is strong enough anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (no consensus). Has, but is weak on, secondary sources. Should be merged somewhere. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (no consensus) at WTFPL (2nd nomination). Some of the references seem legit. However, some of the references seem more like links to support original research. Before this is sent to AfD again, those desiring to see it deleted should make the references sources clearer (such as by using Template:Cite web and the other cite templates) so that a more thorough discussion specifically directed to the references can take place. Since it was closed as "no consensus. Leaning towards keep", I think about 30 days should pass before this is listed at AfD again (rather than immediately relisting it). -- Suntag ☼ 16:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• P.S. I don't think it is appropriate to identify a discussion as "AfD was conducted in bad faith" without also providing clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. See Accusing others of bad faith. -- Suntag ☼ 16:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, I was perhaps too hasty in characterizing the actions of some of the editors as "bad faith". I only intended to suggest that they were intentionally and knowingly acting outside of the realm of establish WP policy. That itself may be an act of good faith, I don't know. It's all very subjective, and I apologize. -- Beefyt ( talk) 23:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I rather think that the onus is on those who believe that the subject is notable to improve it, not the other way around. As far as I'm concerned most of the current "references" should be deleted, and were I not reverted for doing so I'd have gone that route. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Pemberton is a renowned anthropologist and scholar whose page was seemingly deleted without any process and very little time for discussion. This seems more like a situation that calls for careful consideration of his notability as an academic rather than speedy deletion in a matter of hours. Shakeer ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• A few things here. First off, it's usually a lot more helpful if you first talk to the administrator who deleted the article, and only come here if you can't come to an agreement with them. Second, it's generally good manners to notify the deleting administrator of DRVs, so that they have an opportunity to respond. Third and finally, overturn the deletion itself. It is too difficulty to properly judge how important a professor is for me to be comfortable with speedy-ing articles on them. I cannot tell whether or not this particular guy is notable, but I'd much rather see an AfD sort it out than a quick judgment call by a single user (which I hope this was, too; if you've gotta' think much about a speedy it probably could use an AfD instead). Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• As far as I know, we don't have a page on Wikipedia for every single professor at every single university.... -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• True, but it is very difficult to tell via speedy deletion whether or not a given professor should have an article. I see enough claims to send it to AFD and overturn the speedy, including the book and being a journal editor. GRBerry 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• On second thought, it probably could be sent to AFD. The article needs a lot of help though. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Cool. Feel free to do it yourself, in which case we can be done here and close this. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure how notable he is as an anthropologist, but he has had several books published [8]. AFD would probably be the best course of action.— Ѕandahl ♥ 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Doesn't assert much notability, but I could go for an overturn and send to AFD. The nominator is reminded to read all the instructions, including either of the two parts where it says that you're supposed to discuss these issues with the deleting admin before coming here, as that tends to be faster. Stifle ( talk) 21:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Vortex (iPod game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

I'd like to see if anything in the article is salvageable. Justice America ( talk) 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:National parks of New South Wales ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)

• Link to CfD: 12 Sep

Very, very weak consensus - another mass nom, only three supporters this time, and in contradiction of a much wider consensus established in May - see this link for the May one, which specifically references all of the involved articles. The line of reasoning put forward for the change is false, as has been asserted here and here, and noone at the Australian project was asked whether this change would be appropriate. (Added 09:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) for closer's benefit, my opinion should be read as "overturn and do not relist".) Orderinchaos 08:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I cannot see how one Australian editors opinion for or against can be seen to be adequate for such a move - and it simply reinforces the problem as noted by Orderinchaos above - in relation to the issues referred to Satu Suro 09:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and preferably do not relist Agree totally - that this is a extraordinarily weak consensus at best. Indeed it should be asked if the closer understands that a relisting to allow for further time to seek input is possible? However when the nominators facts regarding a similar request in May are taken into account - this closure goes directly against the wider consensus and should be relisted (but only if necessary) for appropriate feedback from the editors at the relevant project.-- VS ^talk 11:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist the changes affect 584 articles, three people cant be considered a change in consensus from the May discussion, which wasnt noted in the nomination. Gnan garra 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The consensus in May was against changing "National parks" to "National Parks". There was consensus to change "of" to "in", which you even agreed with: national parks should be at 'in state' ie 'National parks in Western Australia' rather than 'of state' [9] So seeing as you appear to agree with the change made here, why the overturn? -- Kbdank71 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • • My comment is a question of the process and the way in which proceeded, while I may agree with the change DRV is about the process. This process failed due to the lack of notification and lack of identification of previous discussions, obviously there are sufficient editors who feel they werent able to participate in the discussion, hence overturn relist. Gnan garra 23:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • If this had been the consensus, a rename would have occurred to "in" at that point. However, it was rejected, and the latest attempt was snuck in by the back door - there was no effort made at all to notify anyone that the debate was occurring. A similar effort to evade process this week using the "speedy" process, which explicitly contravened the May CfD, has since been overturned. One wonders why users who believe in changes and their defensibility would fear robust debate. Orderinchaos 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Actually, no. It was rejected because "There's too much opposition to this excessively complicated and confusing nomination." If you actually read the discussion, there is consensus for in over of. Just because the closer didn't act on that doesn't mean consensus wasn't there. As for robust debate, I have no problem at all with it. One wonders why you insist on putting words in my mouth. How about we stick to the merits of the CFD? -- Kbdank71 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I could ask, "what merits, exactly?" but will avoid the temptation. Orderinchaos 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist, per the above, a very weak consensus for such a wide-ranging change, especially given the prior consensus. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC). reply
• Endorse as closer, no opinion on relisting if desired. "Weak" or "strong" consensus is not based upon the number of people in the discussion, it's how many people agree with the outcome. And based upon the discussion, there was not only consensus, it was unanimous. -- Kbdank71 16:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - CFD was open for the full five days and everyone who cared to comment agreed with the rename. There is no minimum number of participants required to achieve consensus and the consensus here was unanimous in favor of the rename. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It was not notified anywhere, so those affected by the change had no idea that the debate was occurring. See [10] Orderinchaos 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I see nothing at your link that appears to relate to this discussion. Are you suggesting that Vegaswikian did not appropriately tag the categories for discussion? Having interacted with him/her for several years, I find that difficult to believe. If no one who was interested in the categories was actually monitoring the categories, how is that the fault of either the nominator or the process? Otto4711 ( talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• There are a couple of other questions Otto - Firstly (as has been complained of elsewhere) there seems to be a tag-team approach here by nominator and closer, which secondly, (if I am incorrect and there is no tag-team approach) would not have us all here beating our gums, if the nominator (and perhaps the closer) had courteously (much like we do at AfD) informed the appropriate people in the affected project of the proposed change, so that the matter could have been discussed by persons who are interested. Courtesy seems to have been misplaced here by that editor on this occasion and in at least one other similar all encompassing change involving these two editors. With respect to you then, making assumptive comments that no-one was interested because no one was watching is a cop-out statement - we are damn well interested and our time is being wasted now because those two editors/administrators who should have known better, could have acted much more courteously. -- VS ^talk 05:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Normal practice is, and has always been, to notify (a) the creator or major contributor of content to be deleted, and (b) if the page is part of a project, the project's talk page or noticeboard. While ignoring these conventions is within policy, it shows a tremendous lack of good faith and an unwillingness to work with local projects to determine genuine consensus outcomes. This is particularly the case when a proposal is raised which only affects one project, and even more so when members of that project have, on notification, been willing to contribute to a previous debate on the same issue (which I suspect was in fact the reason they were not notified this time, as they did not support the nominator's position.) Orderinchaos 09:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• There is no requirement that anyone be notified of any XfD debate. If a category is so important to one either personally or as a member of a particular Wikiproject, then the category can be watchlisted to see if an XfD tag goes on it. Crying after the fact that a category that no one within the project bothered to watch was deleted without notifying the project is bogus. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• From WP:AfD "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page." You can talk about sticking to process all you like, no-one is arguing that the strict letter-of the-law process wasn't followed. However basic courtesy was not followed here, as would be customary at AfD for example. This lack of courtesy has directly lead to a poor and very unpopular decision. Given that we are all here now, we can address this problem, restore the previous category names and try and remember this is supposed to be collaborative project not a game of one-upmanship along the lines of the "You should have been watching, so boo-sucks to you, cry-babies" attitude that seems to be in vogue. If this and the related "settlements" debacle has any upside, it may be that it will lead to some reform of what appears to be a deeply flawed process for renaming categories. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk

• Comment1 This is over the question of whether to use in or of . Toss a coin. DGG ( talk)
• comment2 However, if it is actually important, it shows how CfD is unsuitable for anything but trivial limited questions. The process is too obscure to function properly. DGG ( talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• The process seems to function quite well, until someone decides they want to bitch about a result they don't like (and I include myself amongst those who have bitched about a result I don't like so spare me any AGF or CIVIL admonishments). Otto4711 ( talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Quite obviously the process hasn't functioned well in this case; the decision was made based on incorrect reasoning about the nature of the category members (i.e. National Parks in Aust. belong to the states, not the nation, despite the name) and the decision is extremely unpopular with those editors who actually deal with the categories in question. Note that the editors complaining about the decision are not newcomers; in most cases they are experienced editors with a knowledge of process and include some administrators. When such a poor, unpopular decision is made on such a flimsy basis as the "consensus" of three editors with limited understanding of the topic, surely it brings into question the functionality of the process that lead to such a decision? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• The more we look, the more badly concluded CfDs we are finding and the more evidence that the process is broken and being, if not abused, then misused. It's not merely one or two, and of course I have not the specific knowledge of some of the other affected categories apart from geography and Australian topics to know whether others are similarly affected, but I would not be surprised. Orderinchaos 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oh, boo-freaking-hoo, a category that involves Australians didn't get a special extra-procedural notification of the discussion. So what? If the Aussie project people are so concerned about it, then watchlist every category of interest to the project so that any tagging to any category shows up on the watchlist. There is no requirement that interested Wikiprojects be notified of XfD discussions and if those interested can't be bothered to keep an eye on the categories then they have no business bitching about it after the fact if there's a result that they don't like. Take some goddamn responsibility and don't expect anyone else to be your watchguard. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Tut Tut Otto, Your tone if you please?-- VS ^talk 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Tut tut my ass. How many times has someone associated with WP;AUS bitched that something they're interested in has been discussed without their being notified? All you need to do is click one box and then you'll be aware of what's happening with your categories of interest. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• What a rather rude and arrogant comment to make which is also rather offensive. Read what has been said, We shouldn't be forced to watch every single Category in fear of it getting deleted since already my watchlist along with many others are already long and adding categories into the mix would clog up the watchlists. Also the way you make "a category that involves Australians didn't get a special extra-procedural notification of the discussion" sound as if that any one other then Australians should be given special extra-procedural notifications. Some need to realise that this is not an American Wiki, not a UK wiki its a world wide wiki since it seems that only some of us on Wikipedia seem to realise that it's a Wiki for everyone. Bidgee ( talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Agreed - Australia is but one of many projects. It has absolutely nothing to do with us, and everything to do with a lack of courtesy and respect by nominators, who seem to think they own the category structure and act in a manner inconsistent with a wish to develop true consensus on proposals. If a nomination significantly affects Military History, then Milhist should be notified. If a nomination significantly affects Canada, then Cantalk should be notified. If Australia, then AWNB. If the film project... and so on. Rudeness and incivility on the part of CfD regulars really does not help the situation, and really reinforces the notion which is held not just by Australians but by a number of others (including US and UK users) who have spoken to me by IRC and email who believe that some small corners of the encyclopaedia (with potentially big impacts) operate in ways contrary to its expected norms of behaviour. I am, however, grateful to the above user for giving us some really good material to put on the pending RfC on this topic. Orderinchaos 12:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Oh give me a break. You can't watchlist categories because it would clog up your watchlist? That's about the silliest thing I've ever read, and I've read some doozies. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. What happened to WP:AGF? Nothing was 'snuck' in. The affected categories were in fact tagged. Discussing here is unnecessary and a waste of time. This should be listed directly at CfD where it could have already been under discussion. Bringing the discussion here is simply not needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

CfD, unfortunately, cannot be used to undo a botched CfD. That's actually what this forum is for. AGF applies in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Orderinchaos 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry but you are wrong. Simply relist to rename in the other direction at CfD to change it. This has been done several times in the past and produced speedy changes in decisions when valid new information is presented. This forum is not a place to contest decisions that were correctly made based on the discussions in the proper place. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Given that we are here now, the "valid new information" has been presented and it is quite clear that the "consensus" for the change was iillusory, isn't it much simpler to address the issue here rather than indulge in process-wonkery by insisting on a return to CfD. Further, as discussed below, the decision here is so wrong as to call into question the process used in this renaming. DRV is absolutely a valid spot for this discussion. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and do not relist - It is quite clear this change was in error, an error caused by making grand assumptions about appropriate naming on a global basis from a "consensus" of three people without any thought of consulting the affected project. The endorsement of this decision is inexplicable other than as a ultra-defensive wiki-lawyering approach to a flawed decision made through a flawed process. I can't understand the eagerness to relist either. There is clear evidence provided that the original category names were correct and appropriate, this DRV can fix this problem by restoring these names. If this close is overturned (as it quite clearly should be), why should we all be forced back to CfD to repeat the same arguments for process' sake? The moral of this tale is that taking the 5 minutes (at most) to leave a message on a project page about the CfD would have prevented a poor decision, saved a lot a valuable on-wiki time allowing all parties to work on actual content creation and avoided a lot of wiki-drama and back and forth accusations. I appreciate the work that CfD participants make to the encyclopedia in a less than glamourous area, however the decision to rename and the subsequent defence of the decision (and process) in the face of the evidence and common sense is just plain wrong. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and do not relist Agree with what Orderinchaos and Matt has said. There was no comments made by anyone to the Australian project page and we shouldn't be forced into adding Categories to our watchlists (Which would clog up our watchlist and slow it down) in fear of them getting deleted without any knowledge of a CfD. Bidgee ( talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Corollary to Bidgee's comment There are, according to the category header, 5,985 categories which are tagged as being part of WP Australia. Orderinchaos 09:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and do not relist - Wikipedia:Manual of Style issues are not resolved by renaming part of the other sides pages at CfD. National parks of does seem more popular, but National parks in has its own supporters. Before making any more National parks in/of category name changes via CFD, a discussion that covers all National parks in/of categories should take place at Wikipedia talk:Categorization or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) to resolve the general issue. -- Suntag ☼ 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment A discussion elsewhere would be welcome (and indeed more appropriate), however I would be wary of mandating global solutions to what are often local peculiarities. I guess that is a point to be raised at the appropriate forum. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• It is possible that this of/in country issue has already been resolved. See Miscellaneous "of country" and Miscellaneous "in country". -- Suntag ☼ 01:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and do not relist per the comments made by Mattinbgn and Virtual Steve. It boggles my mind that three people, all of whom appear to be residents of North America and clearly have no knowledge of local Australian language usage, terminology and customs should be trying to force such a change through in the face of such strong objections from the local editors and administrators who are actually the ones working with these categories. I also don't support making global rules and I think these sorts of issues with categories should be treated in the usual way we deal with language usage and peculiarities, i.e. consistency, national ties, etc. It is also rather disappointing to see an administrator cracking snarky gags in unrelated discussions at the expense of a very prolific and hard working project. [11]. An apparently "humourless" Australian... Sarah 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The opposition to the change that has been implemented seems to be more about being offended that the change was made, not that the change is inaccurate. The national parks in question are indubitably "in" the states of Australia mentioned. For example, from the Daintree National Park article, I learn that "Daintree is a national park in Far North Queensland (Australia)" (emphasis added), and all the others i sampled read the same way. Also, the Aussies argue that the Australian states get to designate new national parks, so they are "of" the states, but that is a technicality that the nation has delegated that authority to use the national park term to states. It is not very different than the United States' administration of its National Register of Historic Places, in which applications for new National Register listings are processed by the states; I think the national agency involved usually goes along with the states' staff recommendations. Also Suntag's opposition seems misinformed: Suntag cites that " National parks of does seem more popular" without noticing that, yes, that is now the usage for 100 percent of the nations, and Suntag states " National parks in has its own supporters", without noticing that group is 100% states not nations. Reading Suntag's own evidence, it is now unanimous that national parks are in states and of nations. Other previous opposition to a change in the May 14 debate was that no one should care so it shouldn't be changed. Mostly the opposition reads as kneejerk and it looks best to me to leave it as it is, changed, and be done with it. doncram ( talk) 06:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Given different circumstances in different countries, it may well be that one country uses "in" for theirs and another uses "of" for theirs, and there's no problem with that from Wikipedia's point of view (most failed proposals come from a mistaken notion that Wikipedia must be uniformly and globally standard). Because national parks in Australia are, paradoxically, established and managed by State governments (the name only reflects a level of funding priority) then they are actually "in Australia" but "of (state)". There's no issue of "delegated national authority" - all national parks start off being declared as Crown reserves by the State Governor (I can provide evidence if required, it's fairly abundant in nature), and do not require either a vote of the Federal Parliament or designation by the Federal Environment Minister or the Executive Council to become national parks. I'm not sure why the naming persists - there may well be a historical reason. Additionally, the distinction he makes above ignores the fact Far North Queensland is not a state, and that "in" is perfectly correct for the lead sentence of an article - we use it for suburbs as well, but suburbs are, from a category perspective, most definitely "of" their city. I note doncram was the initiator of the failed 13 May proposal. Orderinchaos 10:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, but allow relisting without prejudice. It is hard for me to understand what the fuss is all about. It looks like the closer -- someone I have found to be hard-working, fair and level-headed -- made a perfectly good close. However, it also seems clear that many Australians find this change to be very objectionable. As a North American, I find the objections hard to understand, but it won't be the first time I am baffled by how English is used in other countries. There are many precedents for adapting category names for local usage (sport(s), transport(ation), etc...) so unless an Australian can make a good argument for using "in", I say do it the way they want. I'd also suggest a comment on the pages of the categories that explains why the category is worded in a way that seems strange to us non-Australians. That will help keep the categories from being renominated. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. A near arbitrary decision was agreed to. A better reason should be required to turn it back again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I disagree. It was only agreed to by 3 people who live in the USA who have little or no knowledge of Australia and no one from the Australian project was informed to give there view. Bidgee ( talk) 11:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Indeed, the fact the same move was rejected at the 13 May CfD with a significantly more representative consensus cannot really be ignored. There is no provision for "arbitrary" measures on content (other than BLP) under Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Orderinchaos 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist Now that it's clear that the overwhelming majority of those with an interest in the subject were omitted from the discussion, the consensus of three people at CfD -- and the disruption it has caused -- cannot be considered in process. If those supporting the original consensus at CfD believe that this still reflects the will of the community, then relisting will allow greater participation of all involved. Not only can consensus change, it appears that it already has. Alansohn ( talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. This is an example of why wide notification is "a good thing". It is only now appearing on the talk page of the Wikiproject Protected Areas for example. Rmhermen ( talk) 20:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and do not relist - no consensus to change and from the debate consensus is clearly in favour of what was the status quo. JRG ( talk) 00:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Her death was big news in Hong Kong, as the tree that killed her was goverment property and was one of hundreds of historical trees. Now are you trying to say that anything that happens there is not big news at all by deleting that article Banana Jim ( talk) 04:38, 24 September 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) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle ( talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Ehm, this looks to me to be a simple case of WP:BIO1E. If we've got an article on the event, a mention there would be good. But beyond that she doesn't appear notable, important, or anything of the sort. I could go either way on the A7. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Pretty clear WP:BLP1E / WP:NOTNEWS case. It's always sad when people die unexpectedly, but not every accidental death is something that an encyclopedia can cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - per WP:BLP1E. Demonstrate through reliable sources that she was notable before a tree fell on her. ALso suggest the nominator assume good faith rather than decide that editors don't care about what happens in HK. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn/list at AfD BLP1E is about living people. NOTNEWS might be relevant, but one might be able to make a case that there was enough impact from her death for it to not be just a news event. That's precisely the sort of issue that should be determined at AfD, not DRV. JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per Andrew above, but allow a soft redirect to Wikinews if people think that will help readers of the enccylopaedia to find the news story. Guy ( Help!) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Daniel ( talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

I'm requesting a temporary restoration of this article I created to my sand box, for now. It was speedied under A7 about 10 days ago, and I wasn't informed. I'd like to be able to look it over and assess whether or not I agree with the deleting administrators opinion or see if I can improve the article before taking this to a full deletion review. A ni Mate 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Works for me. I'm putting the most recently deleted version in there under a level one header, so it'll be formatted all ugly-like. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• If you do improve it so the claim of importance (preferably some clear cut notability) you probably don't need to do a full deletion review, just get an admin to review your version and restore. The worst that will happen is it'll get deleted again and you'll be back here, or at best it'll save 5 days of pointlessness here. 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 06:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, after reviewing the article, I don't think this is a clear cut A7 by any means. His relationship with the Smithsonian, Pseudo.com, CNN, and being an internet blogging pioneer along with references from the NY Times and the Associated Press show that this at least should have gone through an AfD. Had I been informed, I would have added the "hang on" template, but the decision seems to have been made unilaterally without any attempt to contact the creator of the article.

Are there any particular steps that need to be taken to move this from a temporary restoration to user space to a full on deletion review? A ni Mate 07:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

For those who are interested, here's a link to the article that was speedied in my sandbox. A ni Mate 08:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• As far as I'm concerned we can discuss here the actual deletion as well as how to proceed. I'd overturn and restore as there was sufficient assertion of importance. Here is a working link to the mentioned Associated Press note in IHT [12].-- Tikiwont ( talk) 13:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion no real notability presented, and what is there is deliberately vague to the point of bordering on outright falsehood. For example, the claimed "relationship with the Smithsonian" mentioned above consisted of his donating his webcam and keyboard. Anyone can donate anything at all to the Smithsonian, and there's no evidence they even accepted it, much less put it on display (it certainly doesn't appear in their database). While not a factor in deletion, I must point out the article's abhorrant speculation that he committed suicide, "sourced" to (drumroll, please...) a blog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore . Clearly not an A7--definite and unmistakable assertions of notability. I think it will even hold at Afd, given the sources for notability from the NYT and the AP,. DGG ( talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rather than respond to the accusations that I am being "deliberately vague to the point of bordering on outright falsehood," I'll remember to assume good faith and simply state that my opinion is obviously to overturn. A ni Mate 05:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• OVERTURN and restore. The NY Times seems to think he's notable enough. Perhaps someone's heard of them?-- Feddx ( talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• STRONG OVERTURN AND RESTORE Significant coverage in the New York Times and the Associated Press details a pioneering career in Net-based journalism and production. Deleting this was a mistake. Ecoleetage ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Plenty good enough sources for a non-living person. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Credible assertions of notability accompanied by multiple reliable and verifiable sources available make the speedy deletion out of process. Alansohn ( talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Essjay controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)( AfD 2 March 2007)( DRV 5 March 2007)( AfD 7 March 2007)( AfD 12 March 2007)( AfD 1 May 2007)( AfD 24 September 2008)

I don't know how to do this, but if you click the afd button, it takes you to the first, the AFD i'm talking about is this one Essjay controversy (5th nomination). Closing administrator did not allow me to respond to discussion, expand on rationale, and called me a troll. -- Segragate account ( talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closer; notwithstanding the lack of credibility of a single-purpose account created for the admitted sole purpose of nominating an article to deletion, there is not a single shred of policy that would support deleting this article. It is properly verified, supported by numerous independent reliable sources, and of undisputed notability. I stand by my original closing rationale that the nomination itself is either an attempt to make a point or outright trolling. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

That is an argument you should have presented at the AFD. Your not neutral. Since when did anonymous users not get to discuss these things? Just go ahead and semi protect the entire AFD area if that is the case. I had to create the account cause the software would not allow an IP to to a AFD. Segragate account ( talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What, exactly, makes you under the impression that I am not neutral? I have never been involved in the Essjay mess (at that time, I was only doing the occasional edit here and there and was completely unaware of what was going on behind the scenes), I have never interacted with Essjay, I have never been involved in the prior AfDs and I have never edited that article. —  Coren  ^(talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Because you stated //your// opinion. You stated why you thought the article should be kept - instead of only procedural close grounds. Segragate account ( talk) 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Proper closure. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• The list of AFDs in that AFD is itself incomplete; the first AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay, but it was interruupted by the first DRV due to an early closure as delete when no consensus for deletion existed. I'd say that this closure was sound. Even given the chance to try again here, you didn't bother to actually expand on your reasons for deletion or give us a first one with a shred of credibility. This AFD had no chance of success. GRBerry 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and speedy close The AfD 24 September 2008 (5th nomination) did not set out any Wikipedia policy reasons for the deltion. -- Suntag ☼ 01:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. There are, quite simply, no grounds for the article to be deleted (and no reasonable objection to that fact in the original nomination). The discussion would have undoubtedly been closed as keep, thus making any discussion unnecessary. The close was appropriate, and I will say that, per above, this review remaining open for days on end is also a waste of our time.   user:j     (aka justen)   01:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok. I accept this. Segragate account ( talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist 2 hours and 4 minutes and 3 participants is not sufficient for speedy close, particularly when one participant opined to that effect, and it was pointed-out that for a good portion of that time it was not even on the log yet. The closing summary seems to indicate that the speedy close was used to suppress the voice of a requester of questionable suffrage in the venue. No attempt was made to voir dire the requester as to their interest in the article or process. The statement that the article causes harm and has no global (eg: outside of wikipedia) notability was not adequately discussed to provide an understanding of the context in which the requester made the request. If we do not understand the request, we can't really answer to it very well. This should have been allowed to run for 24 hours and at least 5 participants. Since consensus can change, and new information can become available, we need to be careful not to misuse the speedy close option. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Actually, no, consensus cannot override policy— that includes the deletion policy. —  Coren  ^(talk) 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What part of the deletion policy says we can not discuss deletion of articles? I missed that bit. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Syn ergy 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Reopen AfD, which should always be what we do with these when people object. A speedy close assumes it's either uncontroversial (which it isn't if people complain, like here) or a nomination made in bad faith ( which isn't obvious in this case). So, while I cannot fault the closing admin anywhere, an objection after the fact should result in reopening the AfD. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:SNOW applies. Does anyone here think that the article will be deleted? Ever? Hell no. IF not, then why would we bother opening an AfD again and letting it run 5 days. Protonk ( talk) 05:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy close. Reopening it so that another two dozen people can vote keep is process wonkery. Stifle ( talk) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Nominator can't even spell segregate, let alone policy... Guy ( Help!) 13:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn but start new AFD. Periodic AFDs (i.e. once every year or two) are reasonable. Telling people "consensus has already been determined in the past, go away" is, to me, an anti-consensus thing to do. If we're so sure what consensus is, what's the risk in validating that claim every once in a while, if others aren't convinced? Nobody has to participate in the AFD if they think it's a waste of time headed for an inevitable keep. -- Rividian ( talk) 14:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• overturn/list new AfD per Rividian. We lose nothing by having a new AfD. It will almost certainly be a strong keep and then we won't need to think about this hopefully forever, mmkay? JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) endorse close Thinking about this more, the result is clear. It is very clear that this meets our notability criteria and it is very clear that the consensus is just that. We shouldn't have to go over this again. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  How much stronger than AfD 4 (50 keeps, 3 merges to 5 delete) do you feel this needs to get before we stop bothering trying repeatedly to delete the article against unsupported by policy, exactly?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren ( talk • contribs)

Possibly the user was not saying that we should repeatedly attempt to delete against policy, but rather we should put in a good faith review upon request to determine if deletion per policy is warranted. Circumstances can change, articles can change, new information can become available and consensus as to whether it is per policy or not can chabge. Oh, and policies can change, too. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Honest question here. How would policy change to delete an article with 50 footnotes (most of which to secondary sources that cover the subject) that has been promoted to a good article? Protonk ( talk) 19:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• • More or less yes. But I've already changed my mind. The probability seems sufficiently low at this point that I'm not inclined to really want another AfD at this time. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There has to be closure eventually. DGG ( talk) 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Lifebaka is right that generally SNOW/IAR closures should be overturned if challenged since their rationale is that they are effectively unchalengable. However, we also shouldn't give vexatious SPA's a veto over debates. If someone wants to make a calm and fully reasoned argument for deletion they can, but this is not the way to go about it. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow status quo for now, but in future, assuming a reasonable argument for nomination is made, we should allow it. We don't declare ever that an article is above AfD after multiple keeps, even after 17 of them, and it's a good thing, too. If someone could make a reasonable argument that deleting a long-established article would be supported by policy, we ought to let an AfD run (at least for a day or two). AfDs that are clearly trolling should be closed at once (I'm not saying the one in question is an example), but if they are filed in good faith they should run for a while. Chick Bowen 02:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Coastal and port cities and towns ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)

(Can't figure out how to link it - CfD was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 14#Coastal_and_port_cities_and_towns

Decision should be set aside as invalid and a community discussion initiated. There is no evidence of anybody having been consulted or this CfD having been notified to any of the projects affected, and its implications have caused severe disruption on the Australian project and doubtless on others. The push for standardisation to the extent that nonsensical categories (eg "Port settlements in ___") are created because some country somewhere on earth doesn't use the term "city" or "town" while another does, is not so important that we cannot move forward in a more sensible and considered way with these things and not make a mockery of ourselves to our readers, or be chained by the opinions of five individuals. (As an aside, this discussion suggests the outcome would have been very different had it been notified - already six users have indicated they disagree with the opinions raised.) Orderinchaos 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(Just to clarify I'm happy to see it relisted and go through proper process, although I would prefer an overturn and a discussion at some visible place such as Village Pump.) Orderinchaos 03:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Honest question: Are you proposing a change to how XFD works? I think with the sheer number of discussions in a given day, the Pump would get unreadable quickly. -- Kbdank71 03:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

No, I am proposing that major changes that affect multiple projects should go to some sort of consultation first, where a compromise that works for all or most is hammered out. CfD is not meant to be an exercise in social engineering, it is meant to be a place where categories are discussed. Mass noms such as the one we are reviewing here are an abuse of the process. Orderinchaos 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I certainly agree that the existing routines for carrying out a renaming discussion for an entire hierachy is deficient. I do not object to a relisting, however, you are commingling disparate issues. As Kbdank71 points out you are arguing with a systemic deficiency. That is an issue for which the present forum is not primarily intended, however, you are by now probably experiencing what I have already realized, that Wikipedia lacks certain forums or maybe better, it lacks a culture among its editors for using forums efficiently for discussing certain types of issues. I have addressed some of the problems of the present complex in a post at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board. You state that umbrella nominations such as the one at issue constitute "an abuse of the process". That makes me the abuser since I made these nominations. Do you think it is appropriate to define the issue in this way? From my perspective, I have simply availed myself of the procedures that are in place. I find it unreasonable that I should be blamed for Wikipedia lacking adequate routines for this sort of process. __ meco ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It is a little disconcerting to read that you blame me or whomever for not having brought the issue in front of a larger forum, and you exemplify this by naming the Village Pump, when this issue was in fact brought up at the Village Pump where neither yourself nor anybody else have payed any attention to it. __ meco ( talk) 09:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Not all of us have Village Pump in our watch list and only go to that page when we need some help. Bidgee ( talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

When listing an article at AfD, it is common practise to notify the creator of the article. This does not appear to have happened in this case. With such a mass listing with consequences that a reasonable person could have foreseen (and indeed you did have enough foresight to see this; hence your raising of the point at the Village Pump), it seems to be extremely negligent to have made no attempt to notify interested parties. The mass listing and lack of notification seem to me to fit clearly within "abuse of process"; wiki-lawyering defences such as "I have simply availed myself of the procedures that are in place" notwithstanding. The hyper-defensiveness of some editors involved in this entire mess is astounding. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 10:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist Overturn deletion (as per Hesperian and The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist) - neither a city nor a town is the same as a settlement nor are they the same as each other and there are clearly understood distinctions. This renaming and deletion has caused disruption and the category is no longer useful - there will be too many places put into the one category - Australia as a country is mainly settled on the coast and we have a long coastline - the distinction was useful. -- Matilda ^talk 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist. As far as I can tell, the usual procedures were followed here, including the use of notification templates; so I can't fault the nominator or the closer. But be that as it may, very few people commented on the original listing, and now that their decision has been put into force, a hell of a lot of people are wishing they had known about it. Hesperian 00:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It is normal on CfD to not have a lot of editors discussing when there is consensus. Many discussions are closed with no comments since silence is a clear indicator of support. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, five contributors is often sufficient to judge consensus; but in this case, with various forumssome editors now screaming blue murder over the outcome, there must be some doubt over whether the result really reflected consensus. Hesperian 02:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • The depressing fact that there is actually more editors in a local AWNB discussion than on a worldwide CfD, and yet the latter is claimed to be "consensus", really points to the flaws in the process. In my opinion any serious controversy over a seemingly uncontroversial close should be an automatic relist. Orderinchaos 03:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Clearly there was no violation of process and the results reflected consensus. The name chosen in what is used in the appropriate naming convention so that as a parent category, it is neutral as to the various dialects of English. The discussion appears to have been properly posted and the decision was one that is supported by the discussion. I don't see valid grounds for a reversal of the decision. I will also add that the name was chosen as one that not only works but is also short. It avoids having category names that use multiple combinations of various terms including city, town, township, village, municipality and who knows how many others. A result like that would clearly not be an positive state for the encyclopedia. I should also note that the discussion allows for the fact that below the country level there are likely to be variations. Can anyone state that there are no port settlements of any type in Australia that are not a city or a town? If that is the case, then maybe the solution is a simple as allowing Australia to have a slightly different form at the country level. If that is the case, there is no need for a DRV. Even if there are exceptions in Australia, is that a reason to create a different parent category? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I am not sure that the parent category is the problem - this CfD had very many categories underneath it and without relisting, it is difficult to discuss those subsidiary category changes. -- Matilda ^talk 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Is there a specific issue or a limited set of categories that have a problem? Seems like only editors from one country have a problem with their project not being notified and not liking the outcome. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Quite aside from the fact that "port settlements" has no meaning and is uninformative in English, whereas "port cities" has a long-established meaning. Another piece of evidence that this proposal had very little input to begin with. Orderinchaos 06:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly there was no violation of process and the results reflected consensus.. It is not at all clear that the result reflected consensus. Sometimes, often even, the comments of five contributors are sufficient to judge consensus; but in this case, with various forumssome editors now screaming blue murder over the outcome, there must be some doubt over whether the result really reflected consensus. Hesperian 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Various forums? ^{citation needed} -- Kbdank71 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • • If you don't class AWNB as a "forum" then the AN/I isn't a "forum". Right. Must be just a discussion page. Bidgee ( talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • [13] [14] [15] Hesperian 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • The same people saying the same things in different areas can hardly be called "various forums". -- Kbdank71 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Refactored, since it's an issue to you. Hesperian 03:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer. Nothing wrong with the close. Per Vegaswikian, if the AWNB wants their own category to be different, so be it. -- Kbdank71 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • "So be it"? This from the person who has repeated speedily deleted some of the Australian categories under G4? [16] Hesperian 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Recreation of deleted material: A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version Yes, that's what happened. Someone was being disruptive by repeatedly recreating a category that was deleted via a deletion discussion. G4 absolutely applies. If you want to overturn the decision, DRV is the correct forum. But I'm not sure what that has to do with my endorsement above. -- Kbdank71 03:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • So what you meant was "if the AWNB wants their own category to be different, so be it... except that I'm not going to let them." Hesperian 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • No, what I meant is exactly what I said. -- Kbdank71 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Which is impossible to reconcile with what you did. Hesperian 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Exactly who is recreating deleted categories and which ones? Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • and those who the deletion affected notified (IE: The projects)? No. Bidgee ( talk) 05:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist I agree with what Matilda has said. I also see issues that no one on the projects knew about this (CfD) which meant that there is no true consensus. I also do see issues with the use of settlements (which can mean cities, towns, villages, even small Aboriginal camps/community's would be included in one category which would be a rather long list within it where as having "City", "Town" type categories work for Australia since the lists are still longish but way shorter and easier to use, where as "settlements" isn't easy and doesn't work). Bidgee ( talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist - Local usage in Australia would never see the ports and their adjacent communities as settlements - in the lead paragraphs of the articles affected they are actually specifically identified as Port Cities - creating new category titles that do not fit into local usage is a misuse of the category name - Satu Suro 04:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Part of the issue is that sweeping changes to category nomenclature was made through a CfD that by its nature attracts little attention. It is clear that given the result, there is not consensus for these renamings and the categories should be restored. Decisions of this magnitude need more discussion than using the opinions of five people. It is common courtesy, at the least, to inform a national project if you are making major changes to their category structure. This quote in particular concerns me "Right, because telling someone "I know you wanted to do this, but it doesn't make sense so I'm not going to do it" is a great way to get dragged to DRV. Hence, I don't do it." DRV is a legitimate process and avoiding notifying others of your changes to avoid DRV is hardly in the spirit of openess. How many other changes have been pushed through by this editor under cover for fear of having his/her actions reviewed. Note I don't think relisting is a vaild option for two reasons
• Changes of this magnitude that affect so many categories should be discussed at the village pump, not at CfD
• The proposed renaming should be done on a category-by-category basis rather than as a mass rename. The proposal attempts to create a simple global solution for what is in reality a messy local reality. Each nation and sub-national entity has different arrangements for classifying towns, cities, settlements, localities, etc. and imposing a global solution will not work.

Finally, fair warning to all. I consider creating an RfC to seek further comment on the result of the CfD and DRV and the actions of the participants involved is warranted. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• What also concerns me is that the very editor who closed the CfD and deleted the category did the very thing in January 2006 [17] [18]! Bidgee ( talk) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Very interesting. This diff is interesting too. Agree with Matt's points, as this is not the first time this sort of thing has been done. Might need to go through the last year's CfDs and find any other questionable noms that have gone through less noticeably, too. Orderinchaos 05:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  The current closure aside for a moment, finding that one of the most prolific closers at CfD may have closed similar discussions, and then claiming an "aha moment" is just this side of ridiculous. - jc37 06:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Somewhat of a specious argument - we're starting to see evidence (and I've been emailed some as well) that there's a fair bit of gaming going on in addition to that already raised here involving the users concerned. Some users have clearly identified CfD, a low participation area, as a way to get radical changes in through the back door, claiming their own personal opinions as "consensus" and misusing the speedy rename process when they fail to achieve consensus at CfD. It should make for a very interesting RfC, and maybe even a reform of the CfD process will result from it - I certainly hope it does. Orderinchaos 06:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  "Low" compared to what? Just because a particular discussion that you (or some other person) may wish to see discussed, doesn't mean that others are interested in discussing it. This is true of any XfD. The number of members in a discussion varies based on who's interested.

  That aside... Gaming? Who? The closer? Not a chance. (And my comments were in regard to the closer. I haven't delved into this particular set of discussions yet.)

  "Specious"? I went through Logical fallacy, and found quite a few that apply here. And yes, I will be happy to reiterate how ridiculous I think it is to try to suggest a "pattern", when looking at the edits of someone who, nearly daily, closes dozens of CfDs, and find two that he closed which may be similar, and to suggest that this is an "aha moment". And here's another word: Balderdash. - jc37 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  Apart from getting their bot into a revert war, and some bad faith remarks suggesting they structured their actions to avoid scrutiny at DRV, I was not referring to the closer. The gaming relates to other CfDs, but involves the same participants. In one particularly blatant case they snuck through a speedy rename recently on a whole bunch of categories on a proposal identical to one rejected at CfD by a clear majority some months ago. The proposal was based on a weakly justified (and as it turns out from reliable sources, false) opinion - we're now trying to get that one fixed. Yet the same participants imply the project editors and volunteers (many of whom have FAs to their credit and have put years into improving this thing) are acting in bad faith when we try to take measures to make good the damage done by their ill-thought-out actions or raise questions about process. Orderinchaos 08:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's now 8 am in Europe, and since I went to bed at 1 am a monumental debate has been developing. Since other editors have raised meta-issues here, I'm gonna do the same before joining the discussion as it currently stands. The issue is that people will tend to stay away from a debate if they perceive it to be well under way already, i.e. people don't want to miss the beginning of the show. Obviously, the above has taken place during prime time for Australian editors and I'm sure, just as the Australians missed the original CfR (Categories for Renaming) discussion, most of the world has probably missed the start of the present discussion. Perhaps some sort of a summary box at the top of some voluminous discussions might be a useful implement? __ meco ( talk) 06:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Prime time? I initiated it at 8:25am in my time zone, it's not yet a time when people have gotten home from work and etc (in fact, it was pretty close to US peak time when I did so.) I would also argue that a "snowball" effect occurs - people won't want to be the first to speak but if they see others doing so they'll reply and comment on the comments, so to speak. Orderinchaos 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist As per the request and details provided by the nominator, and subsequent comments. Sorry I must also note that this appears to be a far too enthusiastic and thus eye-brow raising closure, defence and call to arms by Kbdank71. Perhaps if you could consider that it is common courtesy and common sense to alert the appropriate project to pending changes such as these, and so even if that wasn't done this time, this is a worldwide community project and it should be treated as such; and even more especially by administrators with the experience to know otherwise. Therefore I strongly support a relist so that we can see what ensues after a much more informed discussion. What is there to lose? Only face. What is there to gain - a stronger and more reflective consensus! -- VS ^talk 07:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist as in the original request from Orderinchaos - The earlier debate did not consider how much trouble deleting so many subcategories would cause, so we need to debate the restoral of these categories. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Orderinchaos and Matilda. Sarah 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist it would have been reasonable to give wide notice before proposing extensive changes. The 5 days is appropriate for individual items, but not for things like this. DGG ( talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question. If this is relisted, what exactly is to be relisted? It appears that the Australia categories are an issue. Are there others? If most of the changes are not contested then why relist a large number of categories? Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's the whole thing. The wording of "port settlements", which is effectively a neologism, was just poor to start with - what is a port settlement, a settlement *by* a port or a settlement *in* a port (like some sort of houseboat thing) or what? Are we suggesting a port can exist in an "unsettled" state? Given that a port is by nature industrial/commercial, where does "settlement" come into its functions? There's no clear meaning and it certainly wouldn't appear in any RS beyond some sort of historical or colonial context. A port city, however, has a specific meaning in English. Also the issues with world cities like Mombasa, Kenya being called a "settlement" instead of a "city" is borderline insulting (think CSB here). Moreover the wording was only supported by one editor very late in the debate (meco) and not commented on by any others. I personally favoured an overturn and then that would allow British editors to have British categories renamed, US editors to have US categories renamed and so on if they wished to do it that way. If it was relisted I think perhaps this sort of contextual breakup of the nomination would be advisable. Orderinchaos 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

A non-Australian editor, who has contacted me by email, wants to know if the CfD group are intending to rename a certain category, to which two of the affected Australian cities and several of the others belong, to "Host settlements of the Summer Olympic Games". I felt this question addressed admirably how ridiculous this obsession with not mentioning cities in categories has become. Orderinchaos 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

snicker :-) -- Matilda ^talk 13:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist. Broader discussion needed. Clearly many people have a problem with this change and so commonsense says it needs to be reviewed. This is not a criticism of the close, but WP:CCC. Moondyne 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist on a country by country basis as the issue is clearly different for each country. Gnan garra 14:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist settlement? Good god. What a trivial discussion that need'nt have been had, towns and cities are perfectly ok. Consensus is clearly not established. Timeshift ( talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Vegaswikian. If needed, the Australian ones could be renominated where the concerns addressed above could be directly addressed in solely an Australian context. It's not an issue that should require a deletion review. The concept that "no one was notified" is ridiculous. There's no requirement to notify WikiProjects when XfDs are started—the WikiProject bears the burden of keeping tabs on the content that they include in their project. For individual editors—if you care about the name of a category, put it on your watch list. Categories aren't edited much, so usually the only edits that will show up for you are CfD nominations. That's why the requirement that categories be tagged exists. This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard, but every time that happens we can't have a reversal of what has been validly decided under current WP procedures. As I said, if desired, we can have a a new nomination for the Australian ones. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

As stated above, the problem is not simply with the Australian ones - there was some process issues but in addition, neologisms like "port settlements" which, when the CfD is examined, were not contemplated or commented on by more than one editor and make Wikipedia look ridiculous to readers. This is one of the big downsides of poorly consulted changes, and it wouldn't matter who was making the changes, without that sort of feedback, such decisions get made. It happens in companies, it happens in governments and political parties, it happens here. As stated above and elsewhere, we have 6,000 categories in our project, and due to occasional MediaWiki failings, it's not as safe or robust as one might imagine (2/3 of all entries in a category I specifically watch for BLP violations once disappeared in several installments over a few days from my watchlist without my knowledge, and I know of several other editors who have had similar problems - generally the larger your watchlist the more likely the software is to bung it up). There is actually no requirement anywhere in any policy or guideline to tag articles to a project (in fact, WikiProjects are broadly ignored in such, much as Premiers, Prime Ministers and political parties are generally ignored in constitutions), although it's a good idea for all sorts of reasons and one I support. Orderinchaos 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I have well over 6,000 categories on my watchlist, and I get about 1 category tagged for a CfD edit every two weeks. Really, it's not a great burden once you get them on your list. You could even have a dedicated account just for watching them. WikiProjects need to take responsibility for watching their own content and not place the burden elsewhere. If they can't handle the load, them's the breaks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How does this address the MediaWiki issue I highlighted? Orderinchaos 23:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Watching a category has nothing to do with the contents of the category. By watching a category you will be notified if someone tags it for CfD. That was my only point. It's an easy way to be notified of CfDs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What does this have to do with a MediaWiki fault which occasionally makes entire sections of one's watchlist disappear without warning? A "category" to it is simply a differently tagged article - there's no Basic Law that stipulates it's only mainspace articles that can disappear. Essentially, anyway, your entire proposal is an onus reversal - advocates of change should take responsibility for the change, not the people who have to deal with their unfortunate circumstances and are not forewarned. Orderinchaos 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Lol. There is no "proposal". It's a suggestion. You are creating "onuses" where none exist. There is no onus to notify a WikiProject. Period. There is an onus to tag the category, which can be detected with a high degree of accuracy by putting it on your watchlist. If you'd like there to be a requirement to notify projects, that's another story, and one that can't and won't be resolved here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(ec) A prudent editor seeking changes on the scale of the ones made here would at least look for a broad consensus (i.e. more thn just the usual gang) before making the changes. "This is essentially a case of a WikiProject caught off guard, but every time that happens we can't have a reversal of what has been validly decided under current WP procedures" is wiki-lawyering and process-wonkery at its finest. A poor decision has been made, but hey, all the steps were folowed so it has to stand! Do you really believe this is good for the encyclopedia? Can't you see that a process leading to such poor decisions should be addressed? Do WikiProjects really need to be "on guard" against these types of changes or wouldn't it be better if editors proposing these types of changes made a conscious effort to seek a broad consensus? -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 23:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It would have been simpler to just re-nominate the Australian ones, as I said above. To start a deletion review instead looks more like wikilawyering to me than simply asking the closing admin if it would be alright if you could renominate the Australian ones due to concerns in the project. And yes, WikiProjects (or at least someone in them) should be on guard for changes to their content; that's one of the reason watchlists exist, and they are very simple to use. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How does that fix the African, Asian, European and many other categories though which have been misnamed by this ill-considered proposal? One editor's offhand comment, not acknowledged by a single other person, becomes encyclopaedia-wide mayhem? Agreed that this is not good for the encyclopaedia, and the above user should stop trying to pretend this is an issue which *only* affects the Australian articles or project. I've had feedback in the last 48 hours from many other parts of the world that they're glad someone is doing something about this. As for "simply asking the closing admin", they were already using their bot to attempt to revert-war by the time I even found out this issue was occurring. Orderinchaos 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

How do you know it was "ill-considered"? I think that suggests an insight into the mind of the nominator that we should try to avoid. Everyone can have an opinion on the proposal, but your opinion isn't necessarily objectively true. I find nothing wrong with the result, personally. That's my opinion. You obviously disagree. I guess you should have watched the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I was referring to the process, not the nominator. Hypothetical here - If I came up with a proposal in some far-off place, didn't have the experience or breadth of knowledge necessary to anticipate all circumstances, and am joined by a few editors who normally work together and have similar gaps of knowledge, then my proposal is ill-considered. It's not an insult to say that. I've come up with a few particularly bad ones in my time here - thankfully because I notified appropriately, people got to hear of it quickly and I got the weight of "WTF?!" responses from people who knew more than me and I backtracked accordingly. That is what I meant in my use of the word - I apologise for any other interpretation that could be rendered. As for objective - "port settlements" is a neologism (or more properly, a protologism since it is not in wide use in any community). If we had it as an article, it would be deleted per WP:NOT. Orderinchaos 23:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying; I misunderstood your use of the word, obviously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Response about watchlists - I have edited as of today 7171 distinct pages, Orderinchaos has edited 16,125 distinct pages, other active Australian editors ahve similar edit counts (this isn't a boast it is about practicalities) - it is difficult enough to keep track of the pages we have edited let alone those set up by other people. The Category:Coastal towns in Australia was set up by RedWolf ( talk · contribs) following a CfD in April 2005 - not an Australian editor, apparently on an extended wikibreak according to his userpage though from his contributions seems be a currently active editor. Given he has had an extended wikibreak at least sometime, it is quite likely the page would no longer be on his wathclist and even if it was, given the manner of creation, I assume he is not going to be as interested as those that were actively using the category. RedWolf joined in 2003 and has edited 38,670 distinct pages - do you really think watchlists of more than 38,000 pages are the answer? Reliance on the use by individual editors of watchlists seems an inappropriate solution to this issue. Why should sensibly named, long established categories be treated this way. Articles I can understand, you have them on your watchlist, but categories used by many editors but which the page itself is not usually edited is a much more problematic page type and needs to be treated differently.-- Matilda ^talk 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

For categories alone—yes, it's a practical solution because they are edited relatively infrequently. I'm not talking about articles in Wikiprojects. It would be quite easy to have a special account that just watches the categories in a Wikiproject. I could give you stats on how many categories I have on my watchlist and how many edit changes total happen per week, if you want. It's not a large number. And as I said, there are way less than 1 CfD-related taggings per week. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"For categories alone—yes, it's a practical solution because they are edited relatively infrequently." No it's not a practical solution since our watchlists has thouands of articles and images and adding more clogs up the watchlists and even slowing them down (IIRC, Wikipedia recomends that watchlists should be no more then 2000) plus also it's possible for it to still be lost within the watchlist since articles are edited all the time and some of us are also busy and don't have time to look at everything in the watchlist at one time. Bidgee ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Given that there is way less than 1 CfD related tagging per week, surely it would not be an onerous task for the tagger to ensure, if the proposal was in any way likely to be controversial, it is notified widely. This attitude of "If you are not watching, then bad luck" does not seem to be in the spirit of a collaborative project. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

[EC] It is your last sentence Matt that also concerns me the most. Are there two projects here (1) CFDtagpedia and (2) Wikipedia? Is it impossible for the editors of the first pedia group to simply agree that there is a problem with their process? Can they not walk away and publicly comment an intention of letting projects know of future changes directly to the project page. Is that too big for them or too big a task or does it make them cringe in fear of showing publicly that things could be done better?-- VS ^talk 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I never suggested there was no problems with the current process. I'm simply providing a suggestion for how you can keep up with the changes within the current process requirements. This forum is not for proposing a new process. I'd be happy to contribute to such a discussion in an appropriate forum, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You run into a few problems. "if the proposal was in any way likely to be controversial" is in the eye of the beholder, and could probably apply (or not apply) to every CFD, depending on the editor's point of view. "Notified widely"—what does this mean? I agree that it's courteous to "notify widely", but different editors will have different ideas about what is enough in what circumstances. Do you tell the creator? All Wikiprojects that have a tag on the talk page? Do you include Wikiprojects that you suspect would care, even if they don't have their tag on the talk page? Do you use village pump? Right now, the only requirement is tagging the category. I'm simply providing a suggestion of how you could be notified of every CfD for a category you care about under the current CfD requirements. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Most are either routine or limited in scope from my quick inspection of current CfDs, so this is unlikely to be a problem. The main problem from our point of view with CfDs is the only way to check them is a manual process - they don't appear on the front page of CfD, they don't have separate article locations such as AfD does so can't be transcluded onto DSA, etc. Orderinchaos 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"routine or limited in scope"—again, in the eye of the beholder and entirely subjective. (We simply don't know what editors will be upset about what changes. As an admin who closes some CfDs, I have received some pretty nasty ex post facto complaints via email about changes that I thought would have been entirely uncontroversial.) Anyhow, it sounds like you have problems with the current process, which suggests you should propose some changes for the process. But that's not what this forum is for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) One inkling as to how upset people might be - don't like that term - perhaps it would be better expressed as how much of an impact a change might have, is how populated are the categories. Category:Coastal towns in Queensland has 43 towns, there are 57 town in the South Austrlaian category, there are 32 towns in the Victorian category - not sure why there are no cats for the other states - perhaps they are already settlements. Coastal cities has 31 articles plus 4 subcats ... If there is significant population of the categories, I think that is an indicator that the use of the category is widely established, and as before because one does not edit category pages when using them, it is very likely they are not on editors' watchlists, alerting the project(s) which is/are significantly impacted seems a good idea. Part of the point of this discussion in my mind is not what we have done, but how could we work better togethr in the future. -- Matilda ^talk 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with your comments above, Matilda. Just to be clear, I personally am in favour of notifying WikiProjects in CfDs of this type, and would find it courteous and helpful if nominators did so. However, it's currently not mandatory (nor would I support it being so), so it's difficult for me to see how we can fault the nominator for not doing it in this instance. I'm not "wikilawyering", as someone else has accused me of, I'm just trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I withdraw the wikilawyering comment and apologise. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 00:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - the cfd has ended up with a rename that screws up all the related category trees - eg Category:Port cities in Canada was correctly a subcat of Category:Cities in Canada whereas the renamed Category:Port settlements in Canada is not (as a settlement is not nec a city). So I would say that there was a consensus, the close was in line, but the result is chaotic. Occuli ( talk) 00:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I'm not going to do anything but endorse the close, but I have a couple of comments regarding this debate. There's a fundamental lack of good faith in all parties going on here. This was seen to be a wider issue, people did try and drum up more interest in them, but no-one seemed interested. People closing debates can only close what is in front of them, and screaming blue murder because of that helps no-one. What would be more beneficial is if all sides got together and worked out the best way to name these categories, rather than arguing about the result. Consensus can and is allowed to change, and for the record, G4 was initiated only to apply to article space, I've trawled the archives on this and I'm confident on that assertion. However, the fact that it is a general rather than an article space clause conflicts with that fact. The issue of G4 and how it applies to category space and the fact that consensus can change needs a complete review to avoid these deletion reviews which may cause and foster bad blood. Also, there's currently a bot in trial which will notify wikiprojects of xfd debates on project tagged categories, see User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts. Hiding T 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hip Hop Is Dead Movement (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD) 1 Del, 1 weak Del, 1 presumable Del by nom.

There was unanimous agreement that NOR applied, but the weak Del-discussant said in part

However, it looks like someone didn't just blatantly make up these quotes, and we might be able to find them with a search or something.

which is the closest the discussion came to addressing the core question,

can this topic become an acceptable article?

and no one acknowledged the mandatory role (before a Del finding in this case) of some research to evaluate whether the "quotes" offer hope for verifiable content.
Result should have been called with

No consensus in AfD sense bcz of low quality (viz. irrelevance) of arguments presented; restart discussion with instructions to address the deletability of the topic, not the removability of the current content.

-- Jerzy• t 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment you seem to have that the wrong way around. AFD determines deletion of current content, not topics. If the reasons for deletion can be substantially addressed the topic can be recreated without any issue (By which I mean new content addressing those reasons, not just merely an assertion that they can be addressed and recreating identical content). -- 82.7.39.174 ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, TF; i'm pretty sure that reflects a policy change in the last 4-5 years, but i haven't been looking for such changes in AfD, so you're presumably right.
    -- Jerzy• t 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC) & correct placement error, 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    
• All three opinions on that article stated that it was original research that was the problem with the article; with no dissenting views or arguments, that's a valid deletion. Endorse Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Okay, if that had been closed as anything other than delete, it would've been so blatantly wrong. A unanimous delete opinion of the participants is pretty well always consensus. Besides, without someone actually providing sources for the quotes (which I'll admit I have not searched for) there's no reason to overturn. Searching for sources for it is suggested, but has never been mandatory. So, endorse the closure. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 00:26, 24 September 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) 09:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, it's not clear why this request was even made since the article was an unsourced essay about a one-man neologism with no dissenting opinions at AfD; create a new sourced version if you like but this fails policy. Guy ( Help!) 13:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as per AfD and WP:NOR. Would this be suitable for wikiquote? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

Pakistani cricket forum deleted as non-notable. Author then contacted me to question the deletion. Because this article went through the full AfD discussion process, rather than being simply speedied or prodded, the matter must be discussed here first. I have no vote either to keep deleted or undelete. Author's original comment:

Dear Sir,

Could you please let us know why our page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakpassion was deleted.

I see the discussion speaks of "Notability". Could you please suggest what type of evidence you seek for this?

Pakpassion is among the leading provider of Pakistani cricket news and Pakpassion articles and interviews are quoted by many major news agencies who have a page on wikipedia.

Thanks

Regards Wazeeri JIP | Talk 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn most recent G11 deletion. The spam issues could've been taken care of by removing some text instead of deleting the entire article. As for the notability issue, it seems like there are enough sources on the most recently deleted version to maybe make the general notability guideline, so I'd like to see another AfD for it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse This was deleted at an AFD in 2006 over sourcing and decent sourcing that discusses the site rather then quoting fans that use it has not been provided. There are clear COI issues and the article reads like spam to me. I have no objection to a userfied version being worked on and presented here for review but I can't really see the point of overturning a G11 speedy if the sourcing issues have not yet been sorted out. I'm willing to review if more detailed sources are provided Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:55, 23 September 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) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the original deletion, unless proof that a proper article will be created instead of advertising spam. If the result of this discussion allows the article to be re-created, it must be eligible for another AfD in the future if it turns out to be unencyclopedic. Incidentally, the original deleting admin in 2006 is no longer active on Wikipedia. JRawle ( Talk) 14:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment G11 is a criterion without really workable demarcation lines, as compared to the others. I'm surprised more of the deletions under it are not brought here. I have no opinion on this one, except we should let them keep trying. DGG ( talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - spam, non-notable. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability as per WP:N or WP:WEB. It is unlikely that a forum would be a topic suitable for an encyclopedia. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

When I bump into mentions of prominent people in fringe areas (UFO's and aliens, in this particular case) out there on the interwebs, I usually pop over to WP for an overview. If I don't find one, sometimes I'll contribute one. In this case, there once was an article on him, but it's been deleted, which precludes contributing. Seems likely to me that he's notable enough to merit an article (>29,000 hits on Google, for example). Perhaps we could temporarily undelete it and get the article into keepable shape? Granted that much of what he has to say is, at best, questionable, but WP has plenty of solid policies that allow it to talk about questionable claims (and counter-claims) without appearing to endorse them. What sayeth the community? Waitak ( talk) 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Given the flippant nominator's rationale given at the AfD, and the A7 ("does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") speedy deletion reason I agree that this could be undeleted. If Waitak and others then aren't able to make a keepable article using the 29,000+ Google hits, then we can delete it again. Alternatively, copy to user space and await recreation when Waitak has improved it sufficiently there (drawback being that he would have to do that alone, as others might see fit to contribute if the article existed in main article space). __ meco ( talk) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - There is some info at scholar.google.com. There is a mention in July 2004 Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Per the November 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article, Burisch real name is Dan Grain, so reliable source material might be found under that name as well. I don't know if undeleting the article will overcome the A7 deletion. How about get a draft article into keepable shape then undelete the article? -- Suntag ☼ 16:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Um... the article when it was deleted, was, to put it in a word, crap. There are no sources. It's a few sentences. That's it. If someone feels that it's recreatable and can meet guidelines, then please do put a draft together in userspace, and come back here for discussion. Endorse the A7 deletion way back when. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original deletion - raw googlehits are not a meaningful metric. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I can't comment on the original article, obviously, because I've never seen it. What's policy? Is recreating it kosher? If the article as it stood was unworthy of WP (hey, it happens!) then it seems to me that starting from there is better than starting completely from scratch... If the article's that bad, maybe somebody wouldn't mind emailing it to me so that I'm not commenting in the dark...? Re: Google hits: I agree, but note that the reason I came here for this in the first place is that I've read about the guy in several other places, and wanted to see what WP had to say. Waitak ( talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'd be glad to do that but you don't have e-mail enabled. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• My apologies. It's enabled now. Waitak ( talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sent. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• If the editor wants to remake the article and it would be substantially different from the deleted versions, s/he can just do it. If you are sure that the sources you have in hand show notability then create a new article. If you aren't sure, then start with a userspace draft and ask for a second opinion once you think it might be ready. DRV isn't strictly necessary here but if it helps us help you write a good new article, ok. :) Protonk ( talk) 06:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, this is just what I was looking for. I'd be perfectly happy to make a new article, but I didn't know what policy is toward doing so. The only downside I can see of just creating a good article is that we'd lose the history, but that doesn't seem like it would be a great tragedy. Waitak ( talk) 15:32, 24 September 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) 10:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The directions under Temporary review say: "you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted". After reading through the other cases, that seemed like the most applicable. Waitak ( talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Asking the deleting admin is not only faster, it's more courteous. Endorse deletion per Guy below, but allow recreation if sourced. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • My apologies for any appearance of discourtesy. It was certainly not intended. Finding out what's policy and getting it right first go is challenging sometimes. I'm grateful that WP:AGF applies to efforts like this, too. Waitak ( talk) 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, allow sourced re-creation. The orignal article was abject nonsense; once cleaned up it failed WP:CSD#A7 and would also now fail WP:BLP. It was three years ago, so let's WP:AGF and see what the requester can write. Guy ( Help!) 13:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, with care. Clearly a notable subject. Be very careful to stick with reliable sources and WP:NPOV. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

The AfD for this article started off with four delete votes when the article was in bad shape. After I improved it and voted keep, two keep votes followed that had better reasoning behind them than the delete votes. I confronted the admin who closed the AfD, but he does not want to un-delete the article, so I have no choice but to come here. [19] [20] The article should not have been deleted, as the subject meets notability guidelines, and the sourcing is adequate. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• History undelete please so we can review the deleted article. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

•  Done. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• I could really go for an overturn and relist here. Nearly all the delete comments revolve around the lack of sources, which was fixed later. So we need to get a wider consensus on the new version. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The deletion focused on the lack of reliable sources, not the absence of any sources. AfD closer MBisanz subsequently wrote:

  "Even after you added sources, people still indicated that I'm not impressed with the accumulation of minor competitions and webzine coverage that's being used in this article., as that was the same viewpoint taken prior to the content changes you made, people still felt the sourcing was of too low a quality to keep the article."

  Seem like properly exercised discretion was used in the close. No restriction on recreating if close reasoning is overcome. -- Suntag ☼ 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • And I brought up that only ONE person said that, and his point of view went directly against the notability guidelines. [21] MBisanz has even told me that he is a "rampaging deletionist". [22] -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Erm, that link is over 9 months old, so I forgot to use a <sarcasm> tag all that time ago? MBisanz ^talk 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, consensus was validly interpreted at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • At the very least, there was no consensus. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Looks like we disagree on that. Stifle ( talk) 10:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Bishop Brigante is a multi-talented hip hop musician and actor. Not only did he release a single on iTunes Canada, but he also made a significant appearance in the movie Narc. He acted in two hip hop-based TV series, Platinum and Drop the Beat. [23] He has Peruvian ancestry, and collaborates with local reggaeton artist Fito Blanko. Recently, he's been getting significant exposure on the popular website worldstarhiphop.com [24]. Lastly, he's releasing his debut album entitled The Poker Face soon, and his hip hop group, known as S.L.U.G., is also releasing a double CD very soon. He's definitely notable. [25] Blackjays1 ( talk) 18:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Proper AfD. Attempt a recreation in userspace before coming back here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Could you explain why you think the AfD was so "proper"? -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • OK. I re-read your comments here and at AfD. The early run of "delete"s has a strong effect, but you say the article (referencing) changed substantially. Your comments were not answered substantially. The closing admin didn't address your points and was excessively brief. Overturn. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• With respect to BlackJays1 the deleted article does not contain any substantial independent reliable sources and by our usual measure of notability this bloke is not there yet for a wikipedia article and some of your comments suggest that SRYSTAL is an issue. The discussion has a clear outcome and two/three keeps after improvement does not mean a base close if the article still lacks decent sourcing. I'm not seeing any meaningful argument that the merits of the sourcing were not considered at the article or any thorough rebuttal of the lack of sourcing. As such I endorse the close but am very open to discuss further sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

This is for the deletion of "Kent Walls" He's hosting a show on Fox Sports. I just watched him today on FSN. Why is he not listed on Wikipedia? Fox College Sports to premier the 2008 FCS Tailgate Tour.

Completing DRV nom for Kai.robertson ( talk · contribs). Article has been deleted twice: once an expired prod and once as A7. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• List at AfD - Amherst native covers tailgating side of college football has some bio info that can be used in the article. It might not be enough, but AfD can decide that. -- Suntag ☼ 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - it was a three-paragraph autobiography, and claimed he was on some sub-sub-sub-channel of Fox. Does that constitute notability in an era of 1000+ "networks"? -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• It might meet WP:A7 important or significant. -- Suntag ☼ 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn most recent deletion and list at AfD. Recreation of the article == contesting the PROD, so the next step is to take it to AfD. However, I do highly suggest the nominator have sources ready before the AfD starts, or it will probably be deleted again. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 16:47, 23 September 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) 10:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  WP procedure tends to confuse people. DGG ( talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle ( talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD, as is appropriate for any resonably contested speedie. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

File:AlanShearerBanner.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| IfD | article)

Deletion reason was "CSD I7: Invalid justification given for non-free image". I don't see how, since the image had a fair use rationale specific to the image specifying its location and reason for use (in Alan Shearer). Per the non free content policy, it was an acceptable use of a non free image as an image with iconic status and historical importance being the subject of critical commentary in the article. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion (as deleter). It was a non-free image in a BLP that did not specifically aid understanding or illustrate a specific point. L'Aquatique parlez 18:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Its purpose was to illustrate the banner (not to illustrate a BLP subject). Its significance to the article and aid to the reader in that respect was rather self-evident I would have thought given the FUR wording and article text. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • FYI, this is the accompanying text: To commemorate his stint with Newcastle United and his status with the Newcastle fans, the club's main sponsor, Northern Rock, created a giant banner with the message, "Thanks for 10 great years" beneath a picture of Shearer and his signature-goal celebration, and installed it outside the Gallowgate End of St. James' Park. The banner measured 25 metres (82 ft) high by 32 metres (105 ft) wide, and was displayed from 19 April 2006 to 11 May 2006, the day of his testimonial match against Celtic F.C... I can't add the FUR text as you deleted it, but I believe it also asserted the significance and purpose of identification of the banner with respect to the article. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Ehm... As far as I can tell, the most recent version here (sorry, admin-only link) had a tag on it that would've allowed it to be removed from the article on the 5th of this month, after which it could have been I5'd after seven days, which would have been the 12th. I'm not terribly up on my image deletion policy, but it seems like more than ample time was given to complain about this already, and I'm highly tempted to endorse this. Neutral for now, as I'm not committed yet. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 19:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I did dispute it by removing the tag and commenting on the talk page. Apart from WP:Ifd, I know of no other forum for adressing this tag's placement on an image, and as you can see above, this image did not meet criteria I7 for deletion even before its placement for the reasons given. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it was disputed. Not sure why it got reverted back on multiple times... I'm gonna' have to go for overturn and IfD now, given the process issues there, and this doesn't feel to me like an uncontroversial enough deletion for CSD. Zero comment on whether or not the image meets the NFCC. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, fails NFCC 1 and/or 8. Good deletion. Stifle ( talk) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • NFCC-1 is irrelevant, it is being claimed fair use as an image of a banner where no free equivalent is possible. You would not claim a picture/statue of a person failed NFCC-1 because it was the image of a living person. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • And how about NFCC 8? Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Well given that it was used in a discussion about the banner itself, and NFCC#8 is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I don't see where it fails? Justin talk 09:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • The banner exists, what difference does seeing it make? Stifle ( talk) 15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • It doesn't exist anymore, it was a temporary display. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Question Was this a picture of the banner and was this a speedy deletion? I find it frustrating not being able to see the image as an ordinary editor. I saw the banner at the testimonial match, think I've a picture of it somewhere. Justin talk 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes and yes (you can confirm the deletion reason by clicking on the image's redlink). MickMacNee ( talk) 20:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • So if I can find the picture I took, or if my brother can find his, would a free image be a suitable replacement. Or am I missing something? Justin talk 21:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Judging by past discussions, the consensus was that any personal photograph of it (and understandably there are hundreds on the net) is a derivative work of a copyrighted image purely because it was a temporary exhibit and not subject to freedom of panorama. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, proper decision. Image is adequately replaced by text and therefore fails NFCC1. In fact, the text is all there in the article already. I read the article without seeing the image and didn't feel I was missing anything. The text is quite good in covering it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Simple dimensions and a description simply do not adequately replace the image in terms of conveying the sheer size/impact on the stadium and surrounding skyline of the banner to the reader. This was not an everyday occurance (infact it was a unique event in English football, never done before or since), so you cannot say that readers could easily imagine the sight from text alone. If you can't see the image, of course you wouldn't know you had missed anything just by reading the article. MickMacNee ( talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Uhm. I looked at the deleted image after I read the text. Having seen both, I still don't feel I missed anything important the first time round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• discuss at Ifd. Speedy is not for deletions that can be reasonably challenged, of images or anything else. I do not know whether or not should be kept, but the place to discuss it os not here. Deletion review is not IfD1. Incorrect use of speedy. Such use of speedy on an article would be overturned immediately, and this should be no different. DGG ( talk) 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and discuss at Ifd. I'm not convinced a speedy was sufficiently uncontroversial to be used in this case. Justin talk 09:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and discuss - I don't believe that a speedy deletion was necessary for this image, and the validity of the FU rationale must be debated, given that it certainly isn't clear cut. There is certainly "wiggle room", and I think that, if nothing else, a proper debate will put to bed this recurring issue. – Toon ^(talk) 16:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Undoubtedly fails NFCC#1. Listing the photo at IfD will only waste more time. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 07:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly others don't agree. I would have thought "undoubtedly" would mean this would have been a WP:SNOW closure. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Not necessarily. No one has commented in favor of keeping this image, the overturns above refer merely to the process of deletion. I grant you that there are borderline NFCC#1 cases, but this isn't one of them. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 19:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply