Aduri ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While on !vote counting the result was no consensus, certainly the arguments for keeping the article (including those absolutely having nothing to do with the article itself) where not policy based, and amounted to WP:ILIKEIT. The result should have been delete. Cerejota ( talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, reasonable consensus to keep. The appeal is simply because the nominator did not agree with the outcome. Nominator's persistence is amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.32.56 ( talk) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I would've relisted this - very few useful comments at the AfD. Black Kite 01:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist, as per Black Kite - most of the comments are petty bickering and sniping over text formatting issues, rather than actual discussion of the article in question. Certainly, no constructive "Keep" argument was made. Would benefit from a second look. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC). reply

• Closing admin - Couldn't you have discussed this with me before listing it at DRV? Juliancolton ( talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Its not personal, but I guess I could have. I apologize, and in the future will take care to discuss with the closer before DRV. -- Cerejota ( talk) 13:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Keep, reasonable justification to keep because of worldwide distribution and because the film and filmmakers are infact listed on the internet movie database. Agree with Schmidt that it may meet some of WP:NF. User:Higherthinker
• Endorse "no consensus" because that's very clearly the outcome of the AfD.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist, the main focus of the AFD was disrupted by the excessive use of templates. Stifle ( talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist SarekOfVulcan's comment that the references were not independent came too late in the discussion for other people to react to it. Keepers said it was notable but didn't explain why and the so-called wide distribution is not proven in the article. - Mgm| ^(talk) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse "no consensus" it's evident there was no consensus in the AfD. But the worldwide DVD distribution by Amazon.com is clearly noted in the article. -- User:somumu —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC). reply
• Overturn and delete the only convincing argument at Afd was that this failed to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources remains true and was never rebutted. Too much emphasis on vote counting rather than seeing if the objections had been overcome. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete or at least relist per Sr Suarez. Eusebeus ( talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no consensus. A no consensus close has to be really perverse before i would !vote to overturn it to a delete. Just renominate in 1 or 2 months or so. DGG ( talk) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. amazon is considered worldwide distribution. look the film up on amazon before making claims that distribution is 'questionable.' additionally, the sites referenced on the page are independent of the filmmakers. User:Moses321 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.229.73 ( talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice to renomination. The templates got in the way a bit, but that shouldn't be any reason to read the outcome differently. Themfromspace ( talk) 10:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Strong Keep. After reading over the AfD and this discussion, this article is a strong keep. I for one believe that notability is not only reserved for Hollywood. The article cites various independent sources to show its authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.60.5 ( talk) 23:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist The arguments to Keep were not convincing. Pastor Theo ( talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Strong Keep. The arguments to relist were not convincing. The baseless arguments are clearly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:Iamadiscodancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 ( talk) 19:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

List of Myer stores ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There did not appear to be a consensus to delete this article, especially given the poor quality of the nomination (which read, in total, 'WP:NOTDIR'). I suggest that it be relisted for deletion so that a consensus can be developed. Nick-D ( talk) 23:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist, there would not appear to be a clear consensus either way, and many of the Delete votes are just "I don't like it" and variants thereof. I would have closed that one as "no consensus", but I think another look at this is called for. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 23:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC). reply
• Closing admin WP:RELIST permits relist only for a lack of comments, based on the arguments put forward by both sides, it appeared the article failed to pass the NOTDIR criteria and should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Bad reasons or dubious comments are often discounted by a closing admin. For the relist criteria, you can basically treat those as non-existent. - Mgm| ^(talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You're just making excuses for not providing suitable comments. Be proactive for Wikipedia and ask to be relisted too. It's the only decent thing you can do.

• Relist - clearly no consensus and moderator needs to be more proactive in providing reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I would have !voted delete; but there was no actual consensus to delete this.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There was no way that relisting was appropriate to this discussion, and a consensus to delete was formed. Stifle ( talk) 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The nominator didn't sufficiently explain why WP:NOTDIR applied and several delete voters simply parroted his statement. The keep voters were in the majority when it came to explaining their reasonings. By a mere headcount this would be no consensus, on argument strength it was a keep. A relist for proper consensus building is the right move. - Mgm| ^(talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Given the length of the debate a relist would not ahve been appropriate. While the nomination was poor, there was plenty of reasoning on both sides and the closer was correct to weigh the arguments in the context of the discussion and determina consensus to delete. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The discussion should not have been relisted, it should have been closed no consensus. We're only asking for a relist now as it's probably the fairest way to proceed at this point. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC). reply

• Endorse closure. As above. Loserman16 ( talk) 10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure per Eluchil404. Plenty of reasoning from those that have voted delete (whilst there were a few that just simply agreed with the nom). -- Arnzy ( talk · contribs) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist While I agree that there was some arguments put forward by those arguing to delete, most of the arguments were simply a case of pointing to WP:NOTDIR, including the nom, without any attempt to say why it fails. The keep votes, on the other hand, did make a case. In all, it looks like no consensus, not delete. - Bilby ( talk) 14:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Closure looks rather clear to me, plus I don't know what relisting would have accomplished, there were plenty of comments already. Wizardman 17:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Alexis Grace ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is mostly a procedural DRV, agreed with the admin that closed it. There's a major problem with this AfD, and it is this - this article currently fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E, but a bigger problem is that of the 14 Keep votes on this AfD, 11 of them contained only a rationale that quoted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Idol_series#Biographies_of_contestants - in other words, a definition of notability purely invented by a WikiProject. (Of the other 3 Keep votes, two had no rationale at all, and other just quoted Google).

Now, there might be a perfectly good article to be written on this person, and if so, that's fine. American Idol finalists are bound to have a lot of Google hits and mentions in media. But we have to consider notability for one event. The article fails both WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E now, but even if it was well-sourced, it would probably still fail WP:BLP1E ("If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.") not to mention WP:ONEEVENT ("When an individual is significant for their role in a single event ... the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."). American Idol winners (and probably runners-up)? Notable. American Idol contestants that go on to pass WP:BIO via a succesful career? Notable. All American Idol finalists? I'd have to say no - at least not automatically.

Therefore, I'm mainly bringing this to a wider audience to discuss not only the notability of the subject (and other reality show contestants per BLP1E), but also the use of unofficial notability guidelines being used as rationales in AfD. Black Kite 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• comment I'd just like to point out that there's not a very serious BLP1E issue here. If the logic of BLP1E is to avoid harm due to undue publicity then it shouldn't be a big issue with someone who is trying to become a celebrity and was already on television broadcast throughout a major country. There are also editorial preference issues with BLP1E but those aren't as important. I haven't thought about this enough to say anything else substantial regarding overturning or not, but I'll note that in the past DRVs have looked dimly at wikiprojects unilaterally expanding the notion of who should be notable. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Agreed, little harm in this case, but this is more about the Wikiproject issue (and, of course, WP:ONEEVENT still applies, even though it's a guideline itself - I've refactored slightly to make this clear in my nom). Black Kite 02:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - No need for deletion. Quit nominating these articles. Jason ( talk) 02:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. WikiProjects do not get to set lower notability standards for articles in their purview. Stifle ( talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and redirect The common outcome at AFD for this type of articles has been to redirect titles for contestants to the series they were in unless they've done something other than the show. She's done nothing besides American Idol so all the encyclopedic information about her can be covered inside the show's article without causing fragmentation. The musician and creative artist guideline list placing in a major contest as potentially notable, but there still has to be information to build an article with for it to be applied. - Mgm| ^(talk) 18:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and Relist wikiprojects can try to set standards; but it is up to the wider community whether or not to accept them. I do not think that the community is willing to accept that aIl contestants are by that fact alone notable--I personally regard this as absurd. Obviously any contestant sets themselves up for possible ridicule if particularly unsuccessful, but normally that would be a possible violation of oneevent and donoharm--they will get unfavorable publicity enough without us. But in this case, there is not even that. Fox does all that is needed on its own website. DGG ( talk) 21:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and redirect or relist (if relisted, discount all AfD arguments that do not specifically address the issue of substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources). In the AFD for Alexis Grace, the "keep" argument relied entirely on three false assumptions: (1) that WikiProject notability standards override general community standards; (2) that having a Wikipedia article establishes notability (i.e. "all finalists have articles, so all finalists are notable"); and (3) that a high number of Google hits (most of which are passing mentions of the person's name) equates to substantial coverage in reliable sources. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. I'm persuaded by User:DGG's very cogent argument.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The nominator does not think the closing admin interpreted the debate incorrectly since he agrees with the closer, does not think the debate was procedurally closed incorrectly and does not come up with new information since the deletion. Aspects ( talk) 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Eh? The nominator (myself) clearly disagrees with the closer - as I have pointed out, the article fails WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. Black Kite 23:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • What does your first sentence mean then? "This is mostly a procedural DRV, agreed with the admin that closed it." To me that says you agreed with the admin that closed it. If you did disagree then you should read what deletion review is about: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Do you disagree with the closer's interpretion? If so, you should have discussed this with the closer before beginning the deletion review. Aspects ( talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • "agreed with the admin that closed it" means that I did agree this DRV with the closer before starting it. Black Kite 11:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose - No need for deletion. The Idol contestants have their own page as long as their in Top 12. 96.249.147.36 ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (ETC)
  • What is the basis for your assertion? Thanks, – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • You can go check the top 12 contestants from season 2. Their pages were built right after they were announced as a finalist. 96.249.147.36 ( talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (ETC)
      • Thank you for your response.
        While you are correct that most Idol finalists have their own articles, the presence of a Wikipedia article about a subject does not constitute proof of that subject's notability. Notability is determined by the presence or absence of real-world characteristics—primarily, the presence of " substantial coverage [of the subject] in reliable sources". In addition, because anyone can create an article about any topic for any reason, the presence of similar articles is not by itself sufficient reason to keep an article. – Black Falcon ^{( Talk)} 08:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete fails WP:BIO and/or WP:BLP1E. IMHO, no wikiproject may change what is notable or not as determined by the community's consensus - this is the ultimate of bias and unencyclopedic cruft-making. Why couldn't some editors start a wikiproject telephone books say, and determine if you have a number listed you are notable within the project and therefore deserve an article at WP. Absurd? Well, so is some show having all its "contestants" being notable whether it's Idol, Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, or anything else that manages to get some tv station funded from hour to hour. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete per nom. Ejfetters ( talk) 05:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If done so, the articles Kris Allen, Danny Gokey, Allison Iraheta, Adam Lambert, and Michael Sarver should go as well, they are no different. Ejfetters ( talk) 05:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

    They'll have to be nominated separately (and I suspect I will nominate them if this DRV closes as overturn and delete). Stifle ( talk) 09:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete, a wikiproject notability guideline that has not been endorsed by the wider community cannot and should not override WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC). reply
• Overturn and delete A clear-cut case as a false appeal in the AfD to a non-existent standard of notability. Eusebeus ( talk) 13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment: If this gets overturned and deleted without being relisted, could it please be userfied into my userspace? Thank you, Aspects ( talk) 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  Shouldn't be a problem, but be aware that should Ms. Grace become more notable, a further DRV will be required before moving the article back to mainspace. Stifle ( talk) 09:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete Wikiprojects lowering notability standards are a bad precedent (especially for BLPs). -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment This issue seems to get discussed every year, so I dug up a few older discussions in case anybody wants to see previous rationale:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliott Yamin
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol contestants
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Huff
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haley Scarnato,
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Glocksen,
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Rogers (singer),
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sligh,
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sligh (2nd nomination) – JYi ( talk) 14:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Good thing that consensus can change, then, eh? Stifle ( talk) 16:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • And it's very noticeable than on some of those AfDs, all or most of the Keep comments stated nothing other than those people were notable for being American Idol finalists ("The Idol Wikiproject states that all finalists get a page. We have pages for almost all of the other finalists no matter what position they finish in.", "he is notable for being an American Idol finalist.", "According to the guidelines set forth by the WikiProject on the subject, finalists get pages."), or variations on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("other contestants like Kevin Covais (who came in 11th in Season 5) have their own free-standing bio"), or WP:CRYSTAL ("many of the people who are finalists on this show go on to have a career in the entertainment industry"). No-one is denying that many of those who appear in the Top 12 of AI go on to be actually notable; the winner certainly will be, and probably the runner-up; and many others go on to have careers in music or other media that enable them to pass WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. But the only question that needs to be asked is "do they pass WP:BIO now?" If they don't, then the only correct thing to do is delete. However, if the result of this DRV is to do so, can I suggest that they are in fact not deleted, but altered to protected redirects to American Idol (season 8), as this would make things much easier for articles (and their history) to be resurrected if contestants reach the final / become more notable etc. We probably don't need to waste people's time going through DRV again if this happens. Black Kite 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin I'm glad this is coming to DRV. Personally, I feel that Wikiprojects should not be able to lower the bar of notability, that is what policies and guidelines are for. However, if I had gone ahead and deleted or redirected the article per that line of reasoning, people would have screamed I was placing my opinion above those at AFD. So having this DRV to establish this precedent is a good thing. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - it is not in the remit of a wikiproject to dictate policy changes. Changes to BLP need to be discussed on the appropriate talk page. In this case, the subject doesn't satisfy BLP yet. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete The notability of articles should be set by a strong central guideline ( WP:N), which shouldn't be greatly deminished by any individual Wikiprojects. Themfromspace ( talk) 01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - Redirect to season article. It's a dangerous thing to see Wikiprojects attempting to override the BLP policy. Adam Zel ( talk) 06:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Local consensus (such as a wikiproject guideline) does not have the power to ignore broad site-wide consensus for notability and WP:BLP. Cool Hand Luke 08:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep Based on previous seasons, all top 12 finalists have articles. No reason to deviate from this for this season. Syjytg ( talk) 08:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument here (even if this was an AFD). The problem is that a Wikiproject's guidelines have been allowed to trump generally-accepted rules. Quite possibly, many of these biographies would also need to be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 08:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete: What references there are in the article all derive to a single source; much of the information is original research. This speaks to several policy issues: WP:OR and WP:UNDUE at a minimum, and also raises the question of how exactly this contestant meets encyclopedia-wide notability when there appears to be only one reliable independent reference source available. Concur with Cool Hand Luke and several others that guidelines espoused by any wikiproject cannot supersede that of the encyclopedia as a whole. Risker ( talk) 17:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Motley Moose ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I was under the impression this page, upon it's re-listing and removal from the "Speedy delete" page, would be given a few more days of review at least, or perhaps given some leeway in editing under Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. All of the issues brought up in deletion review can now be addressed completely, including all WP:NOT criticisms. I would like to review the deletion of this article, at least temporarily. The consensus built on it's deletion was fatally flawed; not by malicious intent, of course, by a serious misunderstanding even I missed until I reviewed the AfD discussion in detail. Also, with the speed it was deleted, I was unable to save any of the information off of it, as (again) I didn't know it'd be yanked immediately. I did contact the deleting admin, but no response in over 24 hours, and I didn't want the cache file to drop into the memory hole. Thanks, guys. Lemme know what I need to do. Ks64q2 ( talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Support userfying the content if the nominator wishes to use this on another site. Just to note that it's very much the exception that deleted articles vanish quickly (or at all). Stifle ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ahh, okay, I didn't know how quickly the caches disappeared, if at all. Couldn't get ahold of the admin who deleted, and it doesn't seem to be notated anywhere. Though again, I'd dispute the consensus based on my comments above, and can certainly prove it, you are entitled to your opinion. Just let me know how to get ahold of that text. Thanks! Ks64q2 ( talk) 19:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• There are some factual errors in the above. Ks64q2's request to Fram was made less than 24 hours ago as I write this (It's right now about 30 minutes from the 24-hour mark.), and approximately 18 hours before Ks64q2 wrote the above. It was clarified a mere sixteen hours ago, 9 hours before Ks64q2 wrote the above. And the article was not speedily deleted. It was listed at AFD for 6 days, from 2009-02-21 to 2009-02-27 inclusive, including a re-listing on 2009-02-26. A 6-day discussion is not "immediate", by any stretch of the imagination. Those 6 days indeed were the "few more days of review", and they were given. Uncle G ( talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I misspoke, I meant 24 hours after it's deletion, and I was concerned about the cache file being gone permanently. The Google cache file here is junk, the page looked nothing like that when it was deleted, and I've never been through an article deletion before. I mean, the guidelines I was aware of suggested that Wikipedia:Give an article a chance would actually be used- the first I was aware of the deletion was on 25-FEB. No contact was made, no Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process occurred- the first thing that happened was it was tagged for speedy deletion, which was eventually revoked. I understand the "normal" review time was given. I figured if deletion was decided, I'd have maybe a day where it would sit there before being deleted, giving me time to grab the code. Let me know if I'm completely off base here in any way. Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion, per Uncle G, this was hardly an immediate call, and I think that the correct decision was made in closing the AFD. Note that the AFD discussion has a talk page with some further points that shed additional light on some of the claims made in the discussion. However, no objection to the content being userified. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 23:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC). reply
  • Comment The talk page also contains a significant number of counterpoints never addressed, and also suffers from the same misunderstanding I mentioned earlier. Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion Look, buddy, we told you- this article had absolutely no place on Wikipedia. We don't give a damn what your "arguments" are, they don't matter a whit. I've been reviewing Wikipedia articles for years, and you come along and think you can just fire up anything you want? Fuck that. Deletion endorsed, and let him remake the article somewhere else. 12.40.50.1 ( talk) 01:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ... really, I don't know what to say. Heh, at least you had the guts to tell me you didn't care "what my arguments are". Look, dude, I understand there's standards we want to keep on Wikipedia, but if you've got a problem with me, or an ideological problem with the site, then this isn't the forum to take it out on. Take it to my talk page, or I'd be happy to flip you my email address, but don't take it out on this article. Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That sort of addition to this discussion does not help in the slightest. Please desist. Uncle G ( talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Further Comment If the standard of arguments above are anything to go by, the AfD standards on this article have not been met. I'm particularly concerned by the misuse of the speedy deletion criteria. To whit

  "So give an article a chance. Unless it's a blatant speedy delete--such as nonsense, advertising, slander, or a copyvio--don't tag it speedy. And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance--a week should be enough time--to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles. You may want to consider using the {{ expand}} tag. Regardless, even if Prod is used, work with the original editor and make them aware of the reasons for the tag. Help them work within the accepted norms of the community to get the article up to snuff, lest you scare off a newcomer.

  You might consider a websearch for references—part of checking potential notability. If you find anything useful, fill in a few sentences of the article and cite. This is almost always sufficient to make an article PROD-resistant while usefully contributing to the project."

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.49.192 ( talk • contribs) 2009-03-01 03:10:01
  • Once again: Speedy deletion was not involved here. You are perpetuating another factual error. This article went through AFD. The AFD discussion is linked-to, right at the top of this very discussion.

    And the text that you quote aren't our speedy deletion criteria, anyway. Those can be found at, unsurprisingly, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G ( talk)

    • UncleG, I'm sure you've got lots more experience with Wikipedia than I. The article was originally flagged for speedy deletion. This was amended, yes, but the fact is that the first action taken against this article was to recommend it for speedy deletion. And, again, you'll have to excuse my impertinence, but you don't seem to care that the Wikipedian guidelines weren't followed for the article's review and submission for deletion- considering the WP:NOT guidelines you're using in your argument are no less valid, as far as I can ascertain, than the ones I'm using. Kinda sucks, IMHO. Ks64q2 ( talk) 13:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Thank you, this was a point I have been trying to make. There was no pretense at following guidelines set up at Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, or Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Taking a look at the example of Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard, the page was significantly improved in actual 48 hours between the article's editors becoming aware of the article's deletion review until the time it was deleted. Sadly, this wasn't enough time to make it perfect, or run down all the references for the site, and the AfD discussion didn't involve any constructive advice on how to improve the article; instead, it seemed to be focused on justifying the original submission of the article for deletion to the point that outright requests for advice/counterpoints were almost entirely ignored. Not sure why the article merited such treatment. In light of all this, I would like to obviously Endorse relist. Ks64q2 ( talk) 05:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Again, those facts are wrong. You were given constructive advice within less than 3 hours of your first edit to the AFD discussion. You attempted to follow that advice over the following 2 days, and the discussion proceeded to evaluation of the sources that you presented, where they were found to be wanting — as explicitly noted in the discussion closure.

    Another editor in the discussion, Capitalistroadster, tried to locate sources on xyr own, and reported coming up empty-handed, lending support to the conclusion that no sources exist. Editors looked for sources. Some reported finding nothing. Others cited sources that, upon inspection by other editors, didn't seem to actually document the subject at hand in any way, or weren't published by independent and identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, or weren't even sources at all.

    If no sources exist, there can be no article. It's a stretch to say that you weren't given a chance to demonstrate otherwise, when not only were you given a chance, you even took up the opportunity. You simply did not succeed. You've shown no reason for believing that you would succeed now — no sources that were overlooked, no new sources, and no errors in others' evaluations of those sources that you did cite (to which not only did you have the opportunity to respond, you did respond, at length, without refuting a single point). You've shown no reason to think that the AFD discussion didn't focus upon sources, no reason to think that the proper study of encyclopaedists — the finding, reading, evaluation, and use of sources — was ignored, nor any reason to think that deletion policy was not correctly applied. Uncle G ( talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

    • Sigh, I'm gonna end up pissing off admins, aren't I? Again, sir, you ignore many of the points I was making. Indeed, I was given the opportunity, but more sources exist- you seem to imply plugging the users who contributed to the deletion article's submission of the article's namesake into Google constitutes "no new sources" existing. You argument here seems to be "If a couple Wikipedia editors couldn't find them in thirty seconds of indexing Google, they don't exist (or don't matter)". Besides the fact that there are more sources that exist, existing sources are certainly valid, but I could never make the case in detail. Since I see no easy way to refute this argument otherwise, allow me to make a point by point refutation of what occurred during this process. (Note- large volume of text redacted from here) Ks64q2 ( talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. I'm satisfied that the closing admin did what they were supposed to do: implement the consensus.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Sir, if the only criteria for article deletion is a consensus, then a poll should have been posted and results decided thusly. Furthermore, if the consensus was flawed in the ways I have chronicled above, this would further call the decision into question. Furthermore, affirmation of the deletion decision should be based on the merits of arguments presented, not simply on what a majority of the people felt- or am I mistaken in that belief? Ks64q2 ( talk) 15:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Revision of Comment Upon further discussion with user S Marshall, he points out that the closing administrator acted to follow the community consensus, and was not specifically judging on the validity of either side's arguments. I will wholeheartedly agree with this point. The administrator acted within their purview and as Wikipedian guidelines suggest in following consensus. Thank you for your clarification, S Marshall. However, then what is the appropriate forum to discuss a flawed consensus? Ks64q2 ( talk) 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Response--I've replied to that point on my talk page where you also raised it.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Response to revised comment -- The appropriate place is at the AfD before it closes, I'm afraid.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Response Aha. Alas, the refutation I posted above wasn't promulgated in time for me to argue for it, and given that I was only aware of the article's deletion less than two days before it was finally deleted, it was a losing battle to fight. However, if the proper procedure now is to userify the article, address the issues, and then resubmit it at a later date with those issues addressed, then I'll gladly withdraw all of my discussion here except the request that the content be quickly userified, so we can all move on to other issues. Thank you again, S Marshall! Ks64q2 ( talk) 16:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Simply put, the closing admin closed the discussion based on the consensus, in other words, the only way it could possibly have been done. If the closing admin had ignored consensus and closed it as keep, they would have been quickly overruled and possibly sanctioned. It's pointless to ignore consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment in response to Ks64q2's comment above, I suggest this drv is speedily closed as withdrawn by nominator. I also support userfication as he requests.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw Request, per Nominator, as long as the material can be userified for me. Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

transmitter plant ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

History-only undelete. – radiojon ( talk) 03:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment - As far as i see there isn't anything in the history of Transmitter plant but a signature that I should maybe rather have deleted as A3 than as A1, but in any case there is no real content worth restoring.-- Tikiwont ( talk) 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment - As Tikiwont says, there's no article history here to undelete. Hiding T 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close, nothing to undelete. Stifle ( talk) 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Nils Janson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Not a valid deletion. Criteria 12 ( Wikipedia:Notability (music)) is clearly met.
This is very easy to prove. My source is the official website of swedish national radio [1], Sveriges Radio, and ought to be considered believable. I can also refer to the program schedule of the night in question, feb 6th, when the 120 min show was broadcast [2] (take a look, click the show at 22.00 and you see that it features "Nils Janson Kvartett"). This is all in swedish but sources are not requiered to be in english and translation ought to be easy. Surely there is some other swede than me here that can verify my claim? Ikterus ( talk) 10:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Can someone who speaks Swedish have a look at this? Stifle ( talk) 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per Usrnme h8er. Stifle ( talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore, as a Swekipedian I can confirm that the source is a Swedish government radio article and announcement of a 2hr special focusing on the subject. This means he meets WP:MUSIC#12 which appears to have been overlooked in the AfD closure. Also, a couple of people arguing for keep don't seem to have actually !voted in the discussion and may have been missed. Notice that the SR source uses the Swedish spelling of his surname, Jansson (literally Jans son) which is probably correct and probably where the page should be restored to. _{Hur ofta hjälper det att kunna svenska på en wiki?} Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

_{Truleg oftare enn det er hjelp i å kunne norsk.  ;-)} - Hordaland ( talk) 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Further sources from sv: review in SvD, one of Swedens two big morning newspapers and review in DN, the other big morning newspaper. I've also stricken the spelling comment in the previous comment as an effect of the two other sources and sv wiki spelling it Janson - the single s spelling is less common but not unheard of. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• restore clearly the wrong outcome. #12 was specifically cited in the discussion but not heeded by the closing admin. But for a recent difference of opinion with the deleting admin I would have speedy restored this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (and, if one likes, relist) I don't know that any consensus about whether criterion twelve was met was readily appreciable, and even as the discussion had already been relisted once, I think the closing admin would have done best to relist this one toward a thorough consideration of the sources adduced toward notability (the discussion amongst Ikterus, Phil, and neon was stale, but the issues raised therein might have been taken up by others), although his saving us from the continued usage of "criteria" for the singular is to be commended. I do not imagine, though, that there remains any grand disagreement about whether the sources satisfy WP:MUSIC, such that it may not be necessary that an AfD follow restoration. (In traditional DRV parlance, this is an overturn to "no consensus" and relist, but I avoid that terminology because I don't mean to suggest that "no consensus" would have been the right close here; only electing to relist, not to close, can be justified here.) Joe 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore; I think the outcome of this AfD was indeed wrong, possibly due to the confusing way the discussion unfolded. It's hard to wring any kind of consensus out of that debate due to low levels of participation and lack of agreement between the participants that were there. It does appear, upon the review of the source that's now taken place in this DRV, that criterion 12 of WP:MUSIC is fulfilled; so the notability concern seems to be alleviated. Restore this, integrating the new source, and if there are still concerns another deletion discussion can be held, but it looks like this article may well be a keeper. ~ mazca ^{t| c} 10:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore; So what happens now? The consensus seems to be that the deletion was not the right outcome. We just wait for an admin? Ikterus ( talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

  Once the five-day listing period has elapsed, an uninvolved admin will come and close the discussion and take any appropriate action. I struck out your bolded "restore" as by listing here it is already clear that you want the article restored — it may give an incorrect appearance that your position has more support than it does. Please prefix additional comments with "comment" or nothing at all. Stifle ( talk) 09:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks. Ikterus ( talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

List of M.I.High Characters ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Invalid closure. Clearly this is list fails virtually all Wikipedia policy and guidelines on mainspace pages: WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N and WP:OR to name but a few. Gavin Collins ( talk) 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I'd say consensus was pretty clear. Lists are the preferred method of dealing with non-notable characters. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I was the non-admin closer. I had no previous reading or invovlement with the article, or the AfD itself, and care little for the subject matter. I would urge anyone to have a quick look at this thread on my talkpage for some of the background, including an editor who wants it re-opened simply because the don't believe in non-admin closures User_talk:Bwilkins#List_of_M.I.High_Characters. My closing reasons, based on the readings of the arguments are as such:

• M.I.High is notable
• A comment was made that the article was "too long" to begin with
• The individual characters are not notable enough to have separate articles
• The preferred way to therefore handle this on Wikipedia is by a List
• The arguments in favour of Keep was very strong, including those by senior, well-respected editors who are very strong on Wikipedia policy
• The delete arguments did not appear to hold much water based on the 5 items above
• Even if AfD was a vote, the "Keep" !votes were clear

As such, this did not appear to be a controversial close in any way, shape or form. Indeed, when first notified that there was an issue, the question was raised to another admin (see my link above) who concurred. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, reasonable consensus to keep. Stifle ( talk) 19:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but probably not a good choice for a non-admin closure. Hobit ( talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep there was really no other close possible. DGG ( talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment I see no sources in the article itself to verify claims and statements. I'm not sure why everyone is endorsing to keep the article. Am I missing something? Doesn't WP:RS apply? Handrem ( talk) 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  This being Deletion Review rather than a second round of the AfD, people generally focus on whether the close reflected the consensus of the AfD rather than the specific merits of the article. Indeed the article is unsourced, but it was fairly widespread view that it could be sourced in that it needs to be treated as a split-off section of the main article. ~ mazca ^{t| c} 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as keep; consensus does seem fairly clear that this is the way to handle these characters. I doubt I would have non-admin-closed this myself as it does seem a moderately contentious close, but I cannot fault the reasoning behind it. ~ mazca ^{t| c} 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure- The consensus was for keep, and DRV is not AFD round two. Umbralcorax ( talk) 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, I wouldn't have touched this myself but the close was reasonable. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist Endorse Inappropriate closure. I was about to take this to DRV on procedural grounds as this was a non-admin closure and I don't agree that non-admins should close cases that aren't a snowball's chance in hell of passing. This non-admin has already had to defend his/her closures at DRV and I don't think these closures are appropriate as this user hasn't gained the consensus of the community to correctly close AfDs. If it can be reclosed by an administrator, even with a keep, I'll be happy that the correct procedure was taken-out. Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus. Themfromspace ( talk) 05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

•  Done – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you. Themfromspace ( talk) 06:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Do you think this had a snowball chance in hell of being closed as anything but keep? I must defend the original closer's actions in this case as being WP:SNOW.-- Cerejota ( talk) 06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes. The vote was 10-7 (by my count). AfD isn't a vote but this talley could mean keep, no consensus, or delete. The arguments were strong on both sides. An NAC closure was highly inappropriate. Most SNOW closures by non-admins have little to no opposition. Themfromspace ( talk) 06:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse outcome, express concerns regarding NAC. Consensus was reasonably clear, but not completely unambiguous. There is some support for weakening the restrictions on NACs, but that has not been written into the policy guideline—fixed Flatscan ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) or its supporting essay. Flatscan ( talk) 06:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I think the good faith NAC was appropriate per WP:BOLD and the outcome reflected the consensus.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I created four articles on four notable chess sets Selenus chess set, Barleycorn chess set, St. George chess set and French Regence chess set, which included references to external articles that supported the articles as notable. An over zealous admin dick named User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted the articles within minutes of them being created stating they are not notable. I advised if he did not like the articles to post an AFD, but he refused and simply deleted the articles and the Stub +tag and the referenced citations. I was still working on these articles to build them up, why would an admin delete a new article that has been created for less than five minutes?? I want the articles recreated in full. The admin should have placed a +tag "Keep and Expand" not delete the article, without first building a consensus!! 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• 1. "'The Selenus chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
• 2. "The French Regence chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
• 3. "The St. George chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess.", and
• 4. "The 'Barleycorn chess set s composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."

There you go. That's the full content of those four articles. DS ( talk) 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• • Stop lying, where are the citations, the +stub tag, the +categories, the template, these were well organized +stub articles, don't be a dick put the articles back and use the AFD, and build a consensus, the admin powers you have are not to be abused. Green Squares ( talk)

I happened to see these articles while they existed. These sets are not as famous as the Staunton chess set and the Lewis chessmen, but they were standard chess sets. The articles were barely stubs when I saw them, but I think they should be given a chance to be expanded into worthwhile articles. Bubba73 (talk), 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

That's fine. You're welcome to start 'em over. To repeat what I've told Green Squares already: "you gave no indication of any type of notability whatsoever. If you wish to re-create the articles, I recommend that you include some content about why they matter" and "There is no content here. If these are actually notable, if they've genuinely been around for centuries, then you should say so from the very first edit. You should explain why they matter. You did not do that. But you can do it now. " The full content of the articles is given above. WRITE THE DAMN ARTICLES. INCLUDE THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHY THEY'RE IMPORTANT. DS ( talk) 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, I didn't say they were not notable, I said "notability not asserted", which means that you-the-article-writer didn't include any information about why they mattered. I looked at your references. They were links to photographs. That's all. You also included {{chess-stub}}. So what? That's not an article. WRITE THE ARTICLES NOW, AND STOP COMPLAINING. DS ( talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• endorse speedy Notability wasn't asserted. That said, deleting the articles "minutes after creation" if true, might not have been the best choice. Giving stubs time to grow isn't unreasonable. Certainly allow recreation. Hobit ( talk) 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Articles about chess sets don't need to assert notability, though; A7 extends only to people, organizations, and web content (neither, I would note, do I think this was A3able, but I accept that there may exist a consensus for a slightly broader operation of A3 than with which I am most comfortable). Joe 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Agreed. Overturn speedy. At the least they were speedied with the wrong tag. I don't think any other reason clearly applies. So overturn. Hobit ( talk) 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - The speedy deletion criteria only allow articles on people, organizations, web content, and musical recordings to be deleted due to failure to assert notability. Since chess sets don't fall into any of those categories, an article on them shouldn't be speedy deleted for that reason. I think the single sentences DS provided are also just barely enough to qualify as content and context, so I don't think those criteria apply either. Calathan ( talk) 04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I'd say they do fall under CSD A1. The content is essentially a repeat of the lead, with a bunch of superfluous words thrown in: "The X chess set is... chess pieces...to play the game of chess". – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Well, I could see that arguement too, though I was thinking that saying they are a "particular type" of chest piece, apparently with links to images of the particular type of pieces, establishes enough context (i.e. you could tell which specific chess sets the articles were about, as opposed the the example in CSD A1, where there are probably many thousands of people who are funny men with red cars). Calathan ( talk) 05:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • That would, I think, be a gross misapplication of A1; the subject of each of the articles, after all, may be discerned readily (in each case, a specific chess set). Although an article that consists of nothing but a restatement of its title may be expected to fail A1, it does not where that title itself provides at least a sense of the subject. As I note above, A3 ("Any article...consisting only of...a rephrasing of the title") may apply here, but I imagine that we would do well to avoid partaking of a technical analysis; it seems clear that we have a good-faith user who wishes to expand the articles and who thinks restoration would aid him in that pursuit, and I cannot think of any reason for which we should not accede to his request. Joe 05:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • • I don't think it would be a misapplication of A1 or A3. All 4 articles had the exact same text except for the subject's name. If you would've seen the article with the title blanked, you'd have insufficient information to make a distinction between the four. Hence a lack of context. - Mgm| ^(talk) 09:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

      Not sure my idea of good faith extends to someone who thinks it's appropriate to attack a deletion review with "An over zealous admin dick named..." and "Stop lying, where are the citations, the +stub tag.." quite frankly the overall tone of the nom is well short of what I'd expect of a reaonable contributor, though the overall tone from both "sides" for what is a relatively trivial day to day wiki issue (deletion is not a never ever decision etc.) is pretty poor -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• The above anonymous IP 81.104.39.44 contribution is obviously User:DragonflySixtyseven. Green Squares ( talk) 12:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him User:DragonflySixtyseven. I can say with relative certainty based on publicly available information that they are on different continents. DS has given his permission to run a checkuser on him to verify this, however, I don't see a need to do so. -- Versa geek 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• You demonstrate my point remarkably well -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as articles having no substantial content. Furthermore, those who come seeking equity must come with clean hands. Stifle ( talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I'm going to give a comment I've given alot recently - create the article in a condition where it will be kept. Otherwise, if you want to, create all four in userspace and then move them into article space when they are in a condition where they will be kept. The article content provided by User:DragonflySixtyseven doesn't assert notability or provide a meaningful context which is not in the title and a stub notification and external links doesn't change that. If you think the articles are about notable chess sets which should be in wikipedia, create them - but tell the world why they should be in wikipedia in the article itself. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Notability - The editor is not reproducing the articles in full, there were citations/references to external articles supporting notability. This is ridiculous, reproduce the article and give them a chance to expand, they only existed for five minutes, I was still working on them!! Green Squares ( talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia:CSD#A7 A7 does not apply to chess set articles, so the Hall Monitor doesn't know what he was doing twice! Here is A7:

  An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. Green Squares ( talk) 12:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Agreed, but the deletion was valid under CSD A3 as the articles contained no actual information or content other than a repetition of the title. Have another read of what Usrnme h8er wrote. Stifle ( talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, and if you feel you need the content restored to improve the articles and put them in a position where they won't be deleted, I'm happy to userfy them. Stifle ( talk) 12:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Even in this discussion, the editor has not given even a hint of why these chess sets are notable. -- Alvestrand ( talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Could you give a policy-based reason why that is important to this discussion of overturning a speedy delete? Hobit ( talk) 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

WP:IAR. These fail WP:N, and there's not even a hint in the editor's comments that he's willing to consider that stuff that fails WP:N shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Editors should either create articles that have a chance of surviving a WP:N examination, or not create articles. Until there's some hint that there's evidence these chess sets are notable, arguing for their restoration is just wikilawyering. -- Alvestrand ( talk) 20:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion under CSD A1/A3. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• The Hall Monitor to cover his tracks has only reproduced a portion of the article and not the citations/references used confirming the notability. He probably never even checked the citations, being in such a rush to earn Barnstars. Green Squares ( talk) 14:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn for the reasons given by Bubba73. Krakatoa ( talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I'm not exactly in favor of overturning the deletion at this point. I suggested to Green Squares that he expand the articles first and then create the articles (or recreate them). I don't see any point in arguing over it now. Flesh out at least one of the articles offline, then post it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn 1/ deleted too soon after creation -- people needa chance to develop articles 2/ deleted for unacceptable reason not provided for by policy 2a/ no speedy reason applies--if you can tell what the article is about, it has context according to the policy, a an article with a refernec eand a description of the object is not empty. 3/ time to provide references might show notability, but that gets judged in AfD . Non-notable is not a reason for speedy deletion--many apparently not notable things are shown to be notable during the discussions there. I have no idea if the sets are notable but this has to be judged at afd after the experts at Wikipedia have been notified via the Wikiproject. and it is time we did something about over-zealous admins who delete incomplete articles,still being worked on; it is also time we did something about admins who ignore deletion policy and think that speedy deletion can be done on the basis of notability. They discourage new editors, and destroy potential content. The people here who !vote to support the deletion on the basis of not being notable think they are at AfD1. Deletion review is not for judging notability. DGG ( talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think this boils down to the definition of meaningful content and procedure versus common sense. I may have expressed myself poorly above (and used the word notability, which isn't really in the right place when discussing CSD) so allow me to elaborate. I would argue, for example, that an article about a person which contained nothing but the statement "John Doe is a person who is alive" and then had a stub marking, a see also to person and a navbox with people in it would be equally applicable to CSD through A1, A3 or A7 - not just A7. In this particular scenario, and in the case of the chess sets, the A3 motivation would be based on the very core of A3: "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, [...]". I consider the deletion of these pages a valid interpretation of that CSD criterion. The content was, as summarized by sysop User:Stifle on my talk page, "the text DS specified, a reference to a blog, a reference to either a personal website or a site selling the chess sets, an internal link, a navbox, a stub tag, and categories". The two remind particularly well of each other. "The Selenus chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess." _{(quote, DS, above)} is a redundant self referencing sentence which provides no information not already in the title: "Selenus chess set" It's a chess set. Chess sets are used to play chess. It has a name, so it's probably a specific chess set. I'm choosing to maintain my !vote as this having been a proper interpretation of CSD criterion A3. The feedback we should be noting is that the wrong reason was given for deletion, not that the deletion was inproper. IM not so HO (is it ever) overturning a deletion on the grounds that the edit-summary attributed the deletion to an invalid criteria when another criteria applied is pure proceduralism for the sake of procedure. On the issue of the amount of time the articles existed, afaik there is no "must have existed for x minutes" guideline in the administrator instructions for CSD - that's always going to be a judgment call on the part of the admin in question. It should also be noted that no exact creation date has been provided in this DRV. If one of the admins involved could provide that, that would be nice, and might lead no another thing to note. Now userfy, improve and move back to mainspace or recreate from scratch with meaningful content - and I wish you the best avoiding the V N in RS discussion at AfD which seems nearly unavoidable when I scramble around on the internet looking for sources. As a show of good faith, if the articles are recreated and such a discussion does come up, I'll personally avoid !voting in it. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, Usrnme h8er your incorrect, time has a lot to do with it. If an article meets the criteria for expansion in the future, it qualifies to be an article at Wikipedia. If a New Article Patroller, deletes the article, within five minutes they have not given the legitimate article the time it requires for expansion. This is why we have +stub +tags, to stop overzealous patrollers like you from deleting articles. Perhaps, you should re-evaluate the contribution you are making to Wikipedia. I suspect your philosophy of hurting Wikipedia is in conflict with what you have ever done to help Wikipedia. Green Squares ( talk) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No, time has nothing to do with it, which was why I didn't reference it in the "was it a valid deletion" discussion. In the case of CSD - there is no previous consensus on a time limit for a CSD. I don't necessarily agree with an instant one, but then I also think articles should contain something before being saved. Don't hit the save button until you have a "keepable" (containing something (verifiable and with verification included in reliable, referenced sources) other than the title) article. Follow that mantra, and it will save you alot of arguing in AfD and (in this case) DRV. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Congratulations DGG, you are the first editor on this thread that got it right! The admins and hall monitors should read and learn. Be a man and post an +AFD and stop deleting articles to attain fame with Barnstars. Green Squares ( talk) 16:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As I have said repeatedly: RE-CREATE THE DAMN ARTICLES. STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT. If you have more information, put it in. If you don't have more information, if this "the Lithuanian Hemorrhoid Chess Set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess{{chess-stub}}" and "the Fluorescent Green Chess Set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess {{chess-stub}}" and "the Blork Spoogis Chess Set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess{{chess-stub}}" is all you've got, then they'll just get deleted again. DS ( talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I gather then there is no objection to re-creation? DGG ( talk) 17:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

None, if he includes more goddamn information. Which is what I've been saying since last night. Put them in his userspace and let him work on them there. But they weren't even stubs when I deleted them. DS ( talk) 17:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't put the articles in my userspace, you put the recreated articles back where you incorrectly deleted them from, this is on your head not mine! Green Squares ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh wait, I missed a sentence. #2 said "The French Regence chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess. The chess set was named after the Café de la Régence in Paris." So, okay. I made a mistake when I said that it was only one sentence. It was only two sentences. Still doesn't assert any notability. You can write them one at a time and include all the information about notability before you click "save", and it'll be fine. But you created a bunch of articles and left them all in the same condition. DS ( talk) 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You have already been told, recreate the articles where you deleted them. The articles are legitimate, you were wrong, how put them back! Green Squares ( talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I would suggest that by including calling people a WP:DICK, by typing in caps (i.e. yelling at them), and saying "you have already been told", you are harming your case, and truly being disruptive to this process. My recommendation: create an article about "notable speciality chess sets", and include the ones you noted above (and more!). Link it to the article on chess. Your information will be viewed by far more readers in that manner. ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 18:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Ahem..., it was the deleter, not the creator who yelled here. — Sebastian 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I believe the admin acted too quickly in deleting the articles. As far as I can tell, the author was given no chance to do a "hangon". But since they are gone, I suggest that the author write longer articles off-line and then create the articles. Bubba73 (talk), 19:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Having looked at the deleted contents, I'd say that all (with the possible exception of French Regence) are clearly A3 cases. That they were speedied under the wrong criteria does not negate the fact that they should have been speedied. I would like to point out that there is no grace period for articles; whether an admin declines to speedy delete articles that meet the criteria but are very new is entirely up to them—it's prudent to check to see if a very new article is still being worked on, but not required by policy. Frankly, I think DS and GS both need to step back, chill, and maintain civility. I would not be averse to userfying these articles; considering that, if restored to article space, the articles would still be subject to CSD A3 and could be deleted by any other admin who comes along, I find GS's resistance to this idea somewhat baffling. In the future, if you're starting a new article, you probably shouldn't hit "save" until you've got more content than a simple restatement of the title, and if you need to see what you've got so far, use the preview button; that way this sort of thing can be averted. — Gwalla | Talk 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Comment I remember a long time ago, after getting a couple of new stubs CSD'd within minutes, that I was told this: Before you click SAVE for the very first time, ensure you have a few wikilinks and at least 2 or 3 verifiable references. Then, tag the talkpage with a verfiable and valid project. Do this, as oft as ye shall create them. Take this one for example <-- it stayed (although still needs expansion). ( talk→ Bwilkins / BMW  ←track) 19:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Bwilkins nails it. If your article hasn't got anything in it, it's going to be A3'd by most any admin. Endorse and suggest, as noted above, that the articles be recreated in userspace, built out to where they'll stand on their own, then moved live. An aside: the comments of the article creator, both here and to other editors on talk pages elsewhere, are egregiously incivil; I highly suggest that User:Green Squares tone down the rhetoric quite a lot. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• advice GS, I appreciate your note on my talk page, but what you are doing is not helping things here. Your purpose should be to get the articles, not win the argument. We should not be deleting articles still being written, but it happens. Just find a better reference and rewrite it. I am not willing to guess if there will be one, for I don't known the subject DGG ( talk) 20:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. CSD A1 is meant to delete articles lacking the context to be expanded on -- doesn't apply here, they are clearly specific to their subjects. CSD A3 is meant to delete articles with no content at all (e.g. empty pages, or only external links) -- doesn't apply here. CSD A7 doesn't cover chess sets with no assertion of importance. So I think we're fresh out of speedy deletion reasons that could be used. These were 1-sentence articles, maybe, but there's no requirement that I'm aware of that we can't have 1-sentence stubs. I've certainly seen plenty in my time. Just undelete them so we can move on with life. AFD them if they don't improve. Mango juice ^talk 21:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, those articles contained zero content, and their creator would be better off spending time creating versions which do actually assert and demonstrate notability rather than coming to DRV and throwing insults around. -- Stormie ( talk) 02:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn, since I don't think they met the speedy deletion criteria (The "no assertion" A7 criterion applies to people and organizations, not to things), but I agree with DGG that recreating them with better sourcing, and some more content might be a less bureaucratic procedure. (As the articles stood, I don't think they would fare all that well at AFD.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, because there's nothing really worth undeleting and insisting on following process for its rather a time-waster: just write the articles with actual content and be done with it. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 12:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn Not A7. Had sources which make there be content actually worth preserving and I expect that given time these can likely be expanded into larger articles anyways. If there is a problem they should be taken to AfD. JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Controversial closures should be discussed at AfD and this clearly is one.-- S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I have advocating overturning above. (Sorry, Bubba73, I know that you had not committed yourself either way, and didn't mean to imply that you had.) That said, I would like to observe that if User:Green Squares before posting one of these articles had put half the effort into it that he's put into his effort to overturn the articles' deletion, the article would never have been deleted. He could then have moved onto the next article, done the same for it, and so forth, and by now we might have four serviceable starts to articles instead of this absurd tempest in a teapot. DS may have been a bit precipitous in deleting the articles (it's actually hard to judge without seeing the articles - which is why I relied on the comments of Bubba73, who had). But Green Squares' efforts to put DS in his place are a waste of time. Just write the articles already. Krakatoa ( talk) 03:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion but allow re-creation per CalendarWatcher. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion but allow re-creation per many above, and speedy close this discussion, which has lost most of its purpose since the outcome, minus the procedural issues, is pretty much agreed (i.e., the author can try again to create meaningful articles). The hostility and incivility in this discussion is troubling and should not be continued elsewhere. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I believe recreation gives too little credit to the effort it takes for the infrastructure of an article, such as tags, categories, and templates. — Sebastian 05:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, A speedy deletion was not warranted. It is quite clear that the actual article creator did not have sufficient time to expand the article before it was deleted. They should have been placed in AFD rather than speedied. I strongly support an overturn. If there is still a concern, then an AFD should be opened. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Martijn DeVisser's FLV Player ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

It was a stub. I had two notable third party reviews of the software, which makes it notable. Over 10 million people downloaded the free program from download.com alone! I posted hangon as instructed. The talk page is still there, no discussion made, it just deleted. Dream Focus 20:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Title fixed to be page title, not URL. GRBerry 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • • The article had no context, regardless of the stub or not. An article about the software begins with "this is a software that does this and that". Just writing how many people downloaded is a bad excuse. If expanded, I may change my mind but in the present state, no. -- Tone 22:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • With a name like FLV player, I didn't think I needed to write it plays FLV files. The point is you are suppose to discuss the contested speedy delete on the talk page, BEFORE acting. Dream Focus 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • • After a reconsideration, this article does not fit in the A3 criteria I applied initially. Still, it was originally nominated as db-spam which I believe is relevant here. So much from my side. -- Tone 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If he was the talkative explaining type he would've followed proper procedures and discussed on the talk page what he believed was wrong with the article, instead of just deleting it outright, ignoring the hangon tag. I did post on the article's talk page asking about the deletion tag, but he didn't respond, just deleted it outright. Anyway, can someone undelete this already? There was plenty of information in the article, plus links to two reviews providing the software was notable. And it can't be spam, since nothing was being advertised. Its a free program, the most popular FLV player out there. Dream Focus 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't ask why the admin who deleted it didn't discuss the matter (and you'll note that the hangon tag says "this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria..."); I asked why you didn't discuss the matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. Stifle ( talk) 09:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, though I might have gone for a G11 (advertising); there was no actual article there, just a statement that it had been downloaded so many times and an editorial comment that sounded promotional. As far as I know, the "hangon" tag isn't a magic "you must talk about this" card; the admin obviously felt that the comments on the talk page were not sufficient to reconsider the deletion. If you feel that you've got sources to make a full, properly referenced and neutral article, then go right ahead - but I'd suggest forming it in your userspace, then moving it in completed form to the proper name. That should save some grief. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, seems a perfectly valid G11 speedy deletion. -- Stormie ( talk) 02:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as a valid G11. Stifle ( talk) 17:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Wolverine ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Wolverine is noteworthy enough to have a solo template. In addition to having several articles providing overview for the character ( Wolverine in other media, Fictional history of Wolverine), there are also article dedicated to his solo comic books ( Origin (comics), Old Man Logan, etc.) as well as solo films ( X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Hulk Vs. Wolverine) and video games ( Wolverine (video game), Wolverine: Adamantium Rage, etc.) as well as his supporting cast ( Silver Fox, Daken, etc.). Moreso many of these article are not in Template:X-Men or any other navbox. Since Wolverine has a significant number of articles that mostly deal with him directly (and not as his place in the X-Men), the character should have a separate template. Marcus Brute ( talk) 15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, or was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (consensus wording with me, BTW) DGG ( talk) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The was previously another Wolverine template at the same location and mine was deleted under "recreation of deleted material." I was unsure on which admin to contact (the one who deleted mine or the one who deleted the original), so felt it best to post here.-- Marcus Brute ( talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Fair enough. For future reference, it's almost always best (and can be faster) to ask one or more of the admins to reconsider the matter before listing here. As the template deleted per TFD was different from the one deleted most recently, overturn and send to TFD. Be warned, though, I would expect it to be redeleted there. Stifle ( talk) 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The new version of the template was sufficiently different from the original and tried to address the issues that got it deleted first time round. It doesn't meet the G4 speedy criterion. (Relist for TFD if neccesary) - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per MGM; substantially different. Mango juice ^talk 15:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Johnny Bravo (character) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overturn and delete or relist. Juliancolton's closure statement indicates that he found claims of "original research" to be either the most prevalent or most persuasive of the arguments for deletion. However, I challenge that assessment. The strongest deletion argument was that the article is an unnecessary fork of content that belongs in the Johnny Bravo article. The character is not just the main character of the program; rather, the two are so inseparable that any and all encyclopedic content on the character should in fact also be found in the program article. Furthermore, the article as it stands is chock-full of unnecessary plot recaps and quotations; once excised (the necessity of which was acknowledged by Juliancolton), the only remaining content would be small enough that it could be easily merged back into Johnny Bravo, where it belongs. I believe the closing admin incorrectly discounted those quite valid arguments in favor of "original research is not in itself a reason for deletion". Powers ^T 14:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin - A few points: as I said, original research is not itself a reason for deletion. The same could be said about the lack of references and the abundance of in-universe info; these issues should have been addressed through editing, not deletion. Also, the general consensus was that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete in respect of the consensus at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Could you please elaborate? I'm not sure I understand. Thanks, – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I've seen Stifle's votes at drv before. As far as I can tell, he thinks that an afd outcome is either a subjective judgment call for which the drv participant can offer no objective rationale, or a mysterious ethereal substance that penetrates the drv participant's mind by osmosis. Or are those the same thing? 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I thought that the consensus favoured deletion; I'm in a minority and I accept that. I will not dignify 160.39...'s message with a reply. Stifle ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as reasonable close. OR isn't a reason to delete, and consensous didn't favor the view that LtPowers has. Hobit ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• The arguments that Powers offers as rationales for deletion are in fact rationales for redirecting. And there were no valid arguments for deletion in the afd. Hobit was right at the afd--the questions of whether to redirect this subtopic of Johnny Bravo and whether to merge any of the content into Johnny Bravo, should be discussed at the article talk page. 160.39.213.152 ( talk) 18:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closer interpreted the consensus correctly, OR is not a valid reason for deletion. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I voted to delete this article, but I see that the consensus wasn't to do so. OR may or may not be a reason to delete an article. Consensus shows that the article should be kept and worked on for now. The original research should of course be deleted, and the article (re)written from an out-of-universe perspective. If it isn't improved significantly I can see it reasonably relisted at a later date. Closure was appropriate. Themfromspace ( talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Consensus was clear. The nominator, a newcomer here, merely said "unencyclopedic" without further specification. There was one editor very strongly opposed to the article, and he commented 16 times during the discussion. His initial argument was "useless", which = dont like it. The later ones were simply challenging every keep comment said, every suggestion that in might be merged, and every proposed source. What he was basically saying is that material about an character, regardless of sourcing, does not belong in WP. That this did not have consensus is understandable, because with all the disputes at WP:FICT, that sourced content per the GNG is sufficient for an article on a major character in a notable work has been accepted by everyone there. The keeps said the character was sufficiently notable, both because of being the main character and because there were 3 external RSs. The article meets the requirements and no reasonable closer could have closed except to say that. DGG ( talk) 19:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure If after excising OR and unneeded plot details, the remains can be merged somewhere, the edit history should remain for attribution purposes. Deletion would be wholly inappropriate. - Mgm| ^(talk) 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, while User:A Man In Black had a point about the division between the article and it's parent Johnny Bravo being unclear, the deletion of the article was not warranted. Consensus in the discussion was clearly to keep the article but if User:LtPowers and A Man In Black want to start a merger discussion on the Talk page or dramatically reduce the content about the the character himself in the parent article then I see no reason to object to it. It's far too common that any changes, especially cutting down, of a recently AfD kept article are summarily reverted with a reference to the AfD. A closed AfD which ends in Keep does not suspend the right of editors to change the article - nor is it an endorsement of the current content of the article. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The bad state of an article on an appropriate topic is not an acceptable reason for deletion. That's what the deletion debate is about: whether to delete. I suggest the lister use {{ mergeto}} and discuss merging if that is what he/she wants. Mango juice ^talk 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Nothing inappropriate about this closure. OR, the main reason the delete voters cited, in an article of a notable topic is a reason for article improvement, not deletion, and that is what keep voters pointed out.-- Oakshade ( talk) 06:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• endorse close There was no consensus to delete. The topic is almost certainly notable even if there is OR in the current version. JoshuaZ ( talk) 17:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Completing malformed request by an IP; reason is below. Stifle ( talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Following page has been deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_Muslim_Community_Canada - I am requesting restore as this page contained enough information about this canadian community to be useful to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.174.123 ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• The relevant information is present at Ahmadiyya#Canada. Endorse deletion as deletion process was correctly followed. Stifle ( talk) 17:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per Stifle. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy. I think this was deleted as a speedy. A group with 20,000 members is making a claim to notability and so isn't a speedy candidate. If there was an AfD I'm missing, please let me know. It may make sense merged to where it is, but that isn't what speedy deletes are for. Hobit ( talk) 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn The actual notability needs to be decided by the community, and such local councils are often not supported there. But it the size is certainly enough of a claim to pass AfD. DGG ( talk) 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• overturn, I think it makes enough of a claim to easily pass CSD A7. However, I don't think it should have its own article given the coverage Stifle points out and what's been presented in the deleted article: I suggest a redirect. Mango juice ^talk 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Last Call (a cappella) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

PROD should have been contested LastCallACappella ( talk) 21:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) I'm hoping someone will be able to store my group's a cappella webpage. It was originally set up back in 2007 and deleted on September 23rd, 2007 by Animum (see page here). For some reason, the original account I set up the page with was not tied to an e-mail account, and thus I was never notified that my page had been marked for deletion. I'm hoping someone will be able to restore it. Thanks! reply

• Contested WP:PROD, restored. Please add sources. Guy ( Help!) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

H2onE2 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

page= [3] page= [4] page= [5]AM I not permited to be a user on wiki or have a page? page=book cover.jpg Nominations to overturn these deleted pages. It appears that a vigilantly administrator {{subst: NawlinWiki|PAGE_NAME}} H2onE2 ( talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) is working to censor topics from wiki. With 1,000’s of books in distribution and over a 100,000 video watchers the H2onE2 work is not new information but has been officially released to the public; [www.H2onE2.com]Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion, A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species, Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist. Copyright © 2007 by B Billy Marse, ISBN 13: 978-0-615-15819-8, Library of Congress Control Number: 2007935751. In addition the work was performed by a professional Geologist, so it is not outside his specialty. Free copies of the work will be made available to administrators interested in evaluating the work for overturning the deleted pages. Additional information can be found at [6] Videos inclueded in this material are Pyramid and Eye Secret Solved [7] Video uncovers Revelations as a nature environmental doomsday, experienced and predicted by a previously lived civilization. It is like Zeitgeist but more old School. Help me spread it around, grab the code and post it. The video only hints to the knowledge within the book www.H2onE2.com. Exodus Uncovered as a Climate Change Event [8] H2onE2, Emancipates, Exodus, as a survival manifesto. This is an allegory, placed out of timed historical reference, to hide, a 10,000 year old, account of survival, during the great flood, specifically, transition from glacial winter to global summer. Documents the Plight, the journey and dangers, experienced at a climate collapse, termed, Glacial Respiration,. Uncovering environmental change from Exodus, requires the assumption that the great flood of Noah, creation and Moses parting of the Red Sea are, the same event. Different stories, absorbed by the Jews, adopted, and assimilated into their scripture. reply

Proof to Evolution Found in the Two Promoting Conditions [9]

Two primary conditions promote evolution, The first,, is a changing or altering environment, this forces adaptation and offers a platform or stage for a new species to repopulate. The second force promoting evolution is a frequency of radiation, with a sufficient potency to damage the cell structure, code, finger print, without completely destroying the cell. H2 on E2, Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist The Simplicity of Space [10] The Simplicity of Space The video demonstrates visually the simplicity of space and uncovers a series of cult icons. These images demonstrate that the simplicity of space knowledge is known,... More» just not to you. A more detailed understanding can be discovered in the book www.H2onE2.com. Additional videos are located on the website -- H2onE2 ( talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) H2onE2 ( talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Now my User page has been tagged for speedy deletion= [11]this sounds more like a orginized group looks to eras me and my work for public view-- H2onE2 ( talk) 19:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• This was deleted as a copyright violation; can we please get permission sent in from defensetech.org to permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying that the content is released under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0? Stifle ( talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  What was deleted as a copyright violation? The user's talk page has indeed been tagged for speedy deletion, the edit summary says "blatant self ad for author, site, and book, recreated in userspace after speedy". I have to admit I sympathise as it very much looks as though the editor is using Wikipedia to advertise her self-published book. dougweller ( talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  H2onE2, the page requested to be restored, was deleted as a copyvio. Stifle ( talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  The user's name (and voice, which I have heard) indicate that it's "his" book. WillOakland ( talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Then the publisher or copyright holder needs to send in the above-mentioned permission release. Stifle ( talk) 09:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Regardless of whether copyright permission was granted, an article by this user just failed AFD. If that AFD result is upheld and the content of the other deleted pages was substantially the same, then they should stay deleted. ( talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  • There is really no point in asking the user to do the formalities of releasing copyright when the content is clearly unacceptable on other grounds also. DGG ( talk) 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glacial respiration. The content of this article was different but it still exists solely to promote the author's original "research". -- Stormie ( talk) 02:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Stifle ( talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

apt-X ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

An editor who initially created this previously deleted page has recreated it without any formal review after two prior deletions, but there do seem to be a fair number of (marginal but extant) third party sources available to back up a case for notability. For transparency's sake, can we get someone to restore the talk page and the history of the article proper? MrZaius ^talk 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• There's nothing worth restoring from what I can see. Stifle ( talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing additional there, but I can email them to you if you like DGG ( talk) 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Nah - I'll take your word for it. Thanks folks, MrZaius ^talk 12:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sons of Eilaboun ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Number 57 deleted the article about the documentary film "Sons of Eilaboun", I send him a message asking him to undelete the article but he did not reply! Please undelete the article" Sons of Eilaboun", This article is about a documentary film that won an award, and was featured in many film festivals as well it is in the imdb website: www.imdb.com/title/tt1249418 Al-Awda Award for the best documentary, Palestine Carthage film Festival, Tunis Izmir Short Film Festival, Turkey Boston Palestine Film Festival AMAL Euro-Arab film festival, Spain Palestinian Perspectives, Canada And many other film festivals and events! I don't see any reason to delete it put political. Please undelete this article! AmirCohen ( talk) 09:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The deletion was logged as a G4 (recreation of deleted content) but there is no indication as to which deletion process originally deleted the page. I'm open to reconsideration if one is pointed out. Stifle ( talk) 14:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun. Can the nominator explain why the expressed consensus at that debate should not be abided by? Stifle ( talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Permit re-creation if more reviews can be actually cited. The deletes were based on 1/ there being no reviews, but there is a full review in Aljazera [12], gven during the debate, and some were alluded to in other languages but not actually cited (note: the review in Al-Ahram I remarked on in the debate is merely a mention). 2/Lack of IMdB entry, which can merely reflect cultural bias. 3/the very low quality of the article, which was mainly about the event, not the film, but this is a reason for editing, not deletion 4/COI, which is not a reason to delete 5/whether or not the award was notable, about which nothingwas proven either way. 6/incorrect arguments adduced in support of the article e.g."growing popularity",which of course is not the same as actually being popular & notable If there are multiple reviews it qualifies, but let a better article get written. DGG ( talk) 17:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Create a userpage version with proper sourcing that demonstrates that the film passes WP:MOVIE and ask an established editor to move it to article space (getting someone else to do it is a good way to demonstrate good faith - if you want when you've completed the userspace version you can contact me on my talk page and I'll have a look - I like to think of myself as "in good standing"). Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion at the time was reasonable, but as DGG says, there is now coverage. [13] isn't too bad as coverage goes. No objection to sending back to AfD in a few weeks to see what people think of the sources if someone feels that's the right thing to do. Hobit ( talk) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Permit re-creation I think the article should be recreated, because this documentary film is important historical documentary of a topic that is being ignored. Additional to that the film have a imdb entry ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1249418 ), won a important Palestinian award, such films will never win an Oscar because of political reasons. The film was screened in many film festivals and events in many courtiers like USA, Canada, Turkey, Tunisia, Palestine, Israel, Australia, Germany. An article in Aljazeera was written about the film and many Arabic news papers (see http://www.sonsofeilaboun.com/in-press ), and it was mention in an article in Al-Ahram. Ilan Pappe the Israeli historian is featured in the film, and gives a historical background. The film maker is a very respected Palestinian visual artist, and I don't know why Wikipedia have no article about him. AmirCohen ( talk) 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Obrienaudition1.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This image had been selected for deletion, and was deleted unnecessarily as the result of a discussion that began on February 15 and ended on February 22. Furthermore, the consensus of the discussion (contradictory to the closing admin's actions) was to keep. I count a total of four "Delete" and a total of 12 "Keep" and two "Strong Keep" arguments with one strikeout (possible vandalism?) and one comment. The majority of the discussion's vote and comments leaned towards "Keep." The image in question clearly illustrated Conan's audition for the job as host of "Late Night" and furthermore supplanted the text with an image in Conan's early days from the show (something that was lacking in the article). The image was of significiant value to not only the "Late Night with Conan O'Brien article but also Conan O'Brien's own article. I also find it quite coincidental that this image was selected for deletion in the last week of his show's tenure on the air. I'm new here to the deletion review process (and forgive me if I've posted this incorrectly; admins feel free to make changes as necessary), but this image (as per the consensus of the deletion discussion) should not have been deleted. Srosenow 98 ( talk) 13:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The policy-based reasons for deletion outweigh arguments like "keep, it's important", "keep for historic reference", "keep, all that needs to be said is said", and "keep... quit whining". Wikipedia aims to be the free encyclopedia, and the default for non-free content is that it should not be used. Stifle ( talk) 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion (from closing admin). The Keep discussions centered around the claim it is a historically significant image, however, no referenced sources were in the articles or provided in the discussion to support the claim. - Nv8200p talk 15:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deletion/Comment There were plenty of sources in both articles making mention of his audition for the job on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno set and his audition in general. Furthermore, Conan (at that time) was an unknown, as opposed to the others who auditioned for the job. I think if we're going to have an image of Conan O'Brien in either the Late Night or his own article, it would provide a historically significant look into how he looked back then to include the image that was deleted. Also, the policy-based discussions made no sense. There were only four and they all brought up the same point. There was no further support of the deletion claims, and the "Keep" comments (which did outweigh them with a vast majority" lent credence that the image should've been kept. With only four "Delete" comments and a total of 12 "Keep" and two "Strong keep" arguments, common sense says that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the image, not delete it. Srosenow 98 ( talk) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  "I think if we're going to have an image..." "... it would provide a historically significant..." and this is the problem, you think as did the other supporters, however it's not a question of what you or I as wikipedia editors think, it's a question of what does the rest of the world think. Do they present this as a historically significant image? If so can you point to that (i.e. source it)? -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment First, a screenshot of a copyrighted program (even an audition or a pilot) does not in any way fall under an "Original Research" clause. Second, it is widely known and is stated on both the Late Night with Conan O'Brien article (as well as the article for Conan O'Brien himself that he auditioned on the set of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Both mentions of that are cited with valid references (which were missed in the original deletion debate somehow). All images of Conan O'Brien on both articles are very recent, and since Conan O'Brien was a television unknown (with no hosting experience whatsoever), it would help explain and illustrate his audition (and his awkwardness as host, which is apparent by watching the first episode of the show, available on YouTube). The arguments that the image in question failed NFCC #1 and NFCC #8 are moot, especially #1 (replaceable by a free image or text alone). Since we're dealing with a screenshot of a copyrighted program, it's irreplaceable in that regard, and text alone cannot illustrate its historical significance and the fact that he was a television unknown auditioning for a widely popular television program. Srosenow 98 ( talk) 11:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment The image itself is not OR, but the suggestion that the image is "historically significant" can be - unless you can provide sources which comment on this image or at least the event and consider it historically significant. A WP:NONFREE motivation can be OR and needs to be sourced, just as much as article content. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  The general requirement will be that the image had some sort of critical commentary, and in the instance of historically important image it isn't unreasonable to expect that commentary will cover that. If you can't source that it is historically significant, you can't say so without it being WP:OR. If you can't give critical commentary as to it's historical significance, then I would suggest that it isn't actually historically signficant. The sourcing that he auditioned on the set, doesn't automatically make that image historicially significant. Watching you tube videos and drawing conclusions is almost certainly falling foul of WP:OR -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn while it may be OR to call this a significant image, it pretty clearly is. Hobit ( talk) 18:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Also, I'm unaware of NFCC guidelines not allowing opinions (or "OR") when it comes to subjective matters. Hobit ( talk) 13:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Well wikipedia isn't an exercise in rule making, just because everything isn't spelled out in simple terms doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. In this and similar cases it's not directly about the NFCC policy, it's about our basic editorial standards. If we are presenting this in the article as a historically significant image, then it falls under the content policies every bit as much as text. If on the other hand we are not presenting this in the article as an historically significant image, it then seems quite a stretch to then to keep a non-free image on the basis of it being historicall significant. -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 16:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I'd also add that many of the inclusion criteria are meant to try and eliminate the subjective elements as far as is practical. I would have thought for the foundation's stance on non-free content this would be particularly true, I doubt they would support a criteria which suggested that the basic principal could be undermined purely on subjective grounds. -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - competently closed on basis of arguments, instead of vote counting. The historically important argument was clearly spurious, and discredited. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, there's nothing iconic about this image, just screaming "it's historic" doesn't make it so. Nobody articulated what makes this particular image historic and I must be too dumb to see it. -- B ( talk) 13:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Comment I think you both clearly have no understanding of the subject matter. Conan O'Brien was a complete unknown, with no hosting experience at the time, and that particular screenshot helped illustrate his auditioning process. Text alone shouldn't suffice. Srosenow 98 ( talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, but in the absence of sources that indicate this was noteworthy, that's irrelevant. PhilKnight ( talk) 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No? I'm unaware of our image guidelines requiring sources (or even mentioning them) to prove an opinion. Am I missing something? How relevant something is is an opinion... Hobit ( talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Why? Is he flipping the bird in the picture? Was the video fraudulently edited? Is the video famous (ie the Zapruder film)? Is there something so historically significant about the video that not having a screenshot inhibits the ability of the user to understand the topic? No. It's just a random screenshot of his audition. There is nothing whatsoever significant about the image itself. There is no fair use defense whatsoever for using it. His audition may have been a significant event in his life, but not every significant thing needs a picture. Here's the question that you need to answer - what information does this picture convey that text alone cannot convey? In articles like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings, these images are so famous that not including them in the article inhibits your understanding. Mere words don't do them justice. But what in the world is it about this screenshot of Conan that matters can you not say in text? The fact that the event happened is all that matters - the picture is purely decorative. -- B ( talk) 03:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I think B's comment about just screaming "historic" explains the problem more clearly than what I said. Editors who vote 'keep' with a reasoning of 'historic' for an non-historic image can't seriously expect the closing admin is just going to count votes. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I think the problem with the argument (and why I posted this here in the first place) is that consensus clearly dictated that the image should stay. Policy based or not, the votes were strong on the Keep side and they were thrown out like garbage. What ever happened to "consensus" in this case? It's a pretty sad sight to see common sense (in this case, the original xfd argument and its final vote count) thrown out the window. It's a wonder I still contribute here. The bureaucratic bullshit - excuse the language - is way over the top. If we're gonna follow this idiotic logic, let's take the Mt. St. Helens eruption of May 18, 1980. A rather significant eruption in geologic history and it's certainly no secret it happened. Why don't we remove the images of it because "not every significant event needs a photo." Sure, he wasn't flipping the camera off, nor is it an edited video, but the fact of the matter is that it was a screenshot taken of Conan O'Brien when he was a complete unknown auditioning for a television show that was already widely popular. Not only that, but it was the only image on Wikipedia that illustrated his appearance at or around the time that Late Night debuted (which has changed quite a bit since then). The fact that he was a television unknown (with a few small parts in SNL and having been a behind-the-scenes writer @ the Simpsons as exceptions) should be far more than enough to warrant the inclusion of the image in both articles. It was also pretty ironic that the image was tagged for this nonsense right at around the time his last episode was airing - which makes the image even more significant in context. If I were an admin here, I would've kept the image up. It shouldn't have been deleted. Srosenow 98 ( talk) 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • We don't just ignore policy because it's convenient or because of a large headcount. There are some policies which by nature of our project goals are non-negotiable (such as verifiability, copyright infringement etc.) The non-free content policy is in place from a foundation level to meet our project goals of being a free encyclopedia, it can't just be superceded even if every editor on wikipedia decided, forget the "free" bit when it comes to images (in fact IIRC the foundation made more of this when individual wiki's did start loosening their stances on non free content). Also see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus - "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." If you apply the part about "based on opinion", that pretty much covers much of what has been said here in support of the image. -- 81.104.39.44 ( talk) 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

List of Kuwaiti companies ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This was an AfD from July 2008. While at the time the closure may have seemed reasonable, I think it was an anomalous AfD in light of the result at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of companies of the Bahamas, and the existence of many similar lists in Category:Lists of companies by country. See the article as it was at deletionpedia. The objection to the list seemed to be mostly based on it being advertising and promotional, but these comments do not appear to accurately describe the list as it was apparently rewritten by User:mazca. Many of the companies on this list appear to be notable and at least half have articles in Wikipedia, so a list here should be reasonable. It also seemed that there may have been procedural problems with that AfD, in that there was no comment in that AfD for a full 11 days after nomination, a bunch of comments happened in a 24-hour period after a relist, but then no comments were made after an apparently significant rewrite. I recommend overturning the AfD for consistency's sake and to combat systemic bias against non-English speaking countries. DHowell ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore as nom. DHowell ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Can you say what this list would do that Category:Companies of Kuwait does not? (And don't tell me to read WP:CLN; I don't find that guideline persuasive.) Stifle ( talk) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It organizes it as a single list instead a bunch of subcategories that are more difficult to navigate; it provides a short description of each company; and, assuming that any redlinked companies are notable, it provides potential subjects for articles we haven't written yet. To get the same information that this would provide in a single convenient list, I'd have to click on every subcategory and every article in order to see with the category system. And I'd still have no way within Wikipedia to identify notable Kuwaiti companies for which we do not happen to have articles. DHowell ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Fine. Allow recreation. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore. and edit I do find that guideline persuasive, and in any case it is the accepted guideline. Similar lists brought to afd now are generally kept on that basis if there is no better reason than "duplicates a category". They are in fact complementary, because a list can give additional information, and include people obviously qualified for which there are not yet articles. This particular list gave the information in a much too expansive style, but it was edited during the course of the debate and I see nothing much wrong with it except that I'd trim the style a little further. The closer, as is frequently the case, did not take into account last minute changes--probably the best course when that happens in an afd, is to continue the afd for another 5 days. DGG ( talk) 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my closure. The last minute changes were constructive, but didn't constitute a rewrite. There was a clear consensus, and I don't believe the close was procedurally flawed. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Do you honestly believe the constructive changes did not address the deletion arguments? Can you tell me exactly how the deletion arguments apply to the final state of the article before it was deleted? DHowell ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Removing the external links probably fully addressed the advert concerns, however, in my humble opinion, not the other views. I guess part of the reason we differ, is that from my perspective, arguing that a list duplicates a category is entirely reasonable. Sure, if the red links were sourced, then deleting the article would be removing sourced content, which should usually be avoided. However, given the redlinks were unsourced, then I consider the 'duplicates a category' argument to be valid. Anyway, based on the discussion here, I don't have any objection to recreating the article. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close was procedurally correct; it isn't salted, so go ahead and put your new article right there making sure that it doesn't run afoul of the problems leading to its deletion in the first place or it will be speedy deleted. I'm not buying a pig in a poke. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The problem is that "my new article" would substantially be similar to what was eventually deleted, but I don't see how the deletion arguments made apply to the article as it was when it was finally deleted. How, specifically, do you suggest I recreate this article, avoid a G4 speedy, and not "run afoul of the problems leading to its deletion in the first place"? DHowell ( talk) 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation Looking at the difference between the last revision before deletion and the revision from its nomination, there is a significant change. It isn't a whole new article, but it is greatly improved. I don't want to overturn the decision...going too far down the road of asking the closing admin to examine the article in detail (rather than focus more on the discussion) leads us to bad places. But I do think it is reasonable to recreate it. Protonk ( talk) 04:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore, an allowed recreation would either be wasted effort (rewriting the same content) or a copy of the deletopedia content (without edit history, a GFDL violation). Better to restore the final version with history. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Restore Article improved after consensus for deletion was reached. -- J.Mundo ( talk) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorese The AfD was properly carried out. The other AfD you cite wasn't closed correctly as it was done by a non-admin, and it had more than a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. These NACs by this user really need to be looked at. Themfromspace ( talk) 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Firstly let me make clear that this is not a request to reinstate the article on Web 3.0. I agree that it is important that articles on Wikipedia are useful, well researched, and able to cite relevant authorities - otherwise it just becomes a web-publishing platform for anyone's viewpoint on anything; and I do understand some of the reasoning behind the most recent deletion of Web 3.0. However ... this is a term used in the media and within the industry, meaning people will search for it, so I am prepared to add a sub-section to Web 2.0 to cover this, and redirect the term Web 3.0. To that end, could I have access to the last published version so that I can prepare this? Thanks. Greyskinnedboy ( talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Sure, I'll move it to User:Greyskinnedboy/Web 3.0. Tag it as {{ db-userreq}} when you're done. Stifle ( talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Nv8200p archived this debate according to him (and I agree with him on this point) "because I saw that there was no consensus". There is however another problem, which I think allow this review: this file (a map) is supported by no sources (what is written in the file summary is not true). People could say a lot about the PoV characteristic of the map (i.e. boundaries of Azerbaijan in 1918-1920), but, in my opinion, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that the map is using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia, which makes it completely anachronistic; and it's also why the map is not supported by sources (which use the 1918-1920 boundaries). Sardur ( talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This isn't fair. Doesn't this map violate the same justifications you claim above? Atabəy ( talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No it doesn't because contemporary borders are used, not modern ones. And to answer to Grandmaster : a new version has been uploaded, correcting the Armenia-Turkey one, but the problem is still there whith Armenia-Georgia. Sardur ( talk) 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

But it can be fixed without deleting the map, right? Just ask the creator to make corrections, I'm sure he will do that, if there indeed is a mistake. Grand master 07:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The second anachronism is mentioned above (and on the talk page of the file since yesterday, btw), so no need to repeat it again. And no, I don't think it can be fixed without deleting the map: if it is fixed, it becomes a derivative work based on unfree sources, which raises a copyright issue. If it's a derivative work, there's a breach of copyright. And if it's not, then it's OR. Sardur ( talk) 12:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Derivative work is not a copyright violation, on the contrary, it is the only way to avoid copyright problems. Hewsen's maps used in the articles about Armenia are also derivative works, yet you do not want them deleted. So the issues that you cited as a reason for deletion are not valid concerns. Grand master 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There's no copyright violation if the derivative work shows a certain degree of originality, and we are therefore back to OR. As for the map of Armenica supported by Hewsen, do you know what is an OTRS ticket? Sardur ( talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Does Armenica have a permission from Hewsen to use his maps and distribute them to free use by others? Grand master 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Same answer as below. Sardur ( talk) 06:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Relist, It strongly supports User:Sardurs point that File:Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 1918-1920 Map.jpg and File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif show completely different borders between Armenia and Iran/Persia. I'm not an authority on this by any meaning of the word but it probably motivates a check against RS for the same - and since a cursory inspection on google makes me think the latter is the correct border [14], [15] a reslisting with more thorough discussion will probably see this removed. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Andrew Andersen, to whose maps you refer, is a self published author. Everyone can create a website and publish his opinions there, but we should refer to third party published sources. I cited some of such sources below. Grand master 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  I agree, which is why I suggested a check against RS and made no claim of having completed that through my "cursory inspection on google". The fact that two maps, both on wikipedia and both claiming to be verifiably true, are completely different is a problem, whichever way you twist it and whichever map you discredit. One of the maps must be wrong and while (unreliable) sources vary in their drawing of this border, nothing I've seen suggests that the Iranian/Armenian border was that far north. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  The thing is that neither Armenia not Azerbaijan had de-jure recognition on 1918 - 1920, and thus had no internationally recognized borders, so the maps you can find in reliable sources actually reflect the way Armenia and Azerbaijan wanted to see their borders. So both maps are sort of correct, but one should understand that those maps reflect the position of Armenia and Azerbaijan, rather than reality. In any case, deleting one map and keeping the other does not resolve the problem. Grand master 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Delete per consensus to delete at FfD. There looks like a clear consensus to delete at the XFD as this map is a WP:OI and is original research. There were no valid arguments to keep. The only weak argument to keep was that a map of Wilsonian Armenia supports this map however Wilsonian Armenia never came into being and only sought to define the borders between Turkey and Armenia after WW1. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. There was no consensus to delete it the first time, and the decision to keep it was the correct one. The map is supported by reliable third party sources such as these: [16] [17] [18]. Also, Sardur cites as a reason for review that the map is "using modern boundaries Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Georgia", however if you look at the present version of the map, it has no Armenian - Turkish or Armenian - Georgian borders. I don't know if there indeed was such a problem, if there was, it appears that the image has been improved, and if any other corrections are needed, please raise the issue on the talk page. I'm sure it is possible to fix any problems without deleting the file, if one brings them to the attention of the image creator. Grand master 05:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I would like to highlight the fact that Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 had no de jure borders. De facto condition of several disputed territories changed drastically at the time, month by month and day by day (as one can see here or here and here). Noteworthy, user User:Baku87 (the author of the map in question) first removed a map from the ADR article which distinguished disputed territories from proper Azerbaijani territories and replaced it with his self-made one which shows them as unquestionable Azerbaijani lands (see here). The issue is, that if Azeri users are allowed to make maps were disputed territories between the ADR and the DRA/ DRG are shown as part of the first, Armenian/Georgian users will also feel free to make maps which will show them as part of their lands. I myself wait on the outcome of this discussion, and already think of making a map of DRA in a similar way Baku87 did. However it is worrisome that in this way we will get maps that are a source of endless edit wars (already noticeable in connection with the map of Baku87: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]). The Andersen maps are used everywhere in WP articles, his maps of DRA and ADR, which call a spade a spade, are not something I as an Armenian like very well and I'm not sure they are 100% correct, but I understand that using them, rather than maps illustrating nationalistic POV's, is the only way to meet WP:NPOV. -- Vacio ( talk) 08:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. When the number of users on each side of a deletion discussion is roughly equal, the closing administrator is charged with assessing the strength of the arguments and giving more weight to arguments couched in Wikipedia policy. In this case, the argument that the images violated WP:NOR was not successfully refuted by those arguing to keep the image, and as such, deletion is the correct outcome. Stifle ( talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Its not original research but based upon these [33] [34] Baku87 ( talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This point has already been addressed, and you never answered excepting with repeating the same sentence. But now, that's even more interesting : you're using the same sources to pretend that they support both the previous version of your map and the current one, though they are already quite different. It speaks for itself as for WP:NOR. Sardur ( talk) 10:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nothing to hide, I fixed the Armenian-Turkish border and the map is correct, what else dont you agree on? Baku87 ( talk) 10:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete There are NO sources that support this fictitious map. The two weak links they keep posting (which they discovered after the map was created) do not show similar borders anyway, so why keep posting them? If Andrew Andersen's map is self-published than what do you call this garbage? Nakhijevan was de-facto and de-jure in DRA, Karabakh's de-facto status changed dramatically various times etc. This map makes it seem as if ADR had de-jure and de-facto stable control over these territories when it did not. This map should only remain if it is shown in bold hard coded letters that it depicts ADR's territorial CLAIMS.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The first time there was no consensus to delete it and this was the correct decision. The map is based on sources [35] [36]. The main argument of Sardur is that the map uses modern borders, well the Armenian-Turkish border has been fixed. Either way small problems like these should not be an reason to compleet delete a map, it can all be solved. Baku87 ( talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete (in order to be clear). Repeating again and again the same sentence, without answering what has been said about it several times, including on this very same page, won't make it true. Sardur ( talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  As the nominator for this discussion, it is already clear that you would like the file deleted. Please don't put another bold faced heading in (with the possible but unneeded exception of "comment") unless you change your mind about this. GRBerry 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, it's the first time I use this procedure... Sardur ( talk) 21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete Azerbaijan exercised no authority in the regions shown, neither de facto and certainly nor de jure. Baku87's map is only a slightly less grievous reproduction of contemporary Azeri maps which showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas! -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Obviously no consensus the main arguments to delete are the alleged inaccuracy of the map, but the map's keepers point out some sources - so, suffice to say, that there is doubt as to the accuracy of the map = no consensus. This issue is endemic in disputed and historical territory maps (e.g., File:Palestine frontier 1922.png, suffers basically the same problem trying to show frontiers and sea levels that its author has fiddled with perhaps correctly, perhaps not). Since there was no consensus, we keep. Personally, I could endorse a change of rules that all non-consensus items are deleted because WP has no consensus to keep them, but alas, the rule and policy are currently in the opposite sense. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  If I may: when there's either a copyright issue or an OR issue (see above), is consensus necessary? Sardur ( talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  The map is not based on the sources they provided, even those poor sources do not support this map's borders! The map was created by Baku87 without ANY sources merely to support an Azeri version of Lebensraum.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  If as you say, it was created without sources, it cannot be a copyvio as suggested by Sardur - the accusation seems close to a personal attack on its author; and Eupator only reiterates one side of the debate at the FfD: that the map is inaccurate. It is undeniable that this (proto-)state did exist, it's just a dispute over what its borders were de facto or de jure - if disputes permit deletion I'm sure that someone on the otherside would be glad to nominate something having to do with the NKR and its borders. What maps do you have to show what you consider the proper borders of the place were? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  What one side? Here is another map created by Baku87, what does that tell you about the accuracy of this map? Will you use the same rationale to keep that image if it was submitted for deletion? As you can see, Baku87 created a map for the 2000 Baku earthquake article in order to display its epicenter, when the real purpose was obviously to slice Armenia, even against its internationally recognized borders. None from the other side who were monitoring that page have bothered to remove the map. Here is another example of Baku87's fabrications, he added a picture which is supposed to be a memorial for the March Days or Azeri genocide, when the memorial in question is for the Turkish soldiers who fought there. Tell me what is the other side as you call it? Even Azerbaijan's claims from 1918-1920 contradict that map. The maps provided by Grandmaster for example display Akstafa, Kazakh and Poyli in Armenia, not Azerbaijan. The map created by Baku87 includes them. This has nothing to do with sides, but accuracy. Here's a map created by a neutral historian ( Robert H. Hewsen) that accurately depicts the borders: [37].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  First of all, I don't see how other works by Baku87 justify deletion of this particular map. I already cited at least 3 sources that support the accuracy of this map. As fir the map of Hewsen, it clearly contradicts the sources that I cited: [38] [39] [40], and Wilsonian map too. The thing is that Hewsen is an expert on the ancient history, but never published any works on the modern history of Caucasus. In any case, deleting this map and keeping Hewsen's map (which is not copyright free, btw) would mean that a position of a number of reliable sources is being suppressed in favor of position of one other source. That's not in line with the rules, we should present all the opinions, existing in the scholarly community. Grand master 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  For "Hewsen's map", see the OTRS ticket. Sardur ( talk) 06:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  That is permission from Armenica, but do they have a permission from Hewsen? Grand master 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps I was not clear: I know when the sources were added (i.e. long after the map was created), and I share Eupator's conclusions, it's OR. But I also try to address what has been answered, i.e. that the map is supported by the sources. If it is the case (and I don't believe it is), there is a copyright issue. Nothing close to a personal attack. Sardur ( talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  How come that this map, made by Baku87, has copyright issues, and this one: File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif, that has Armenica written at the bottom and claimed to be made on the basis of the Hewsen's map, does not? Grand master 06:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  For your two last questions: you have to see the OTRS ticket or to ask to Armenica. Sardur ( talk) 06:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Ok, I will try to check that. As for the copyright, show me a rule that says that if you make a map on the basis on someone else's map, you infringe the copyright. In that case we should delete all the maps that are used in Wikipedia, as they all rely on maps created by others. Grand master 06:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  If anything, these 2 maps are copyright free, as they were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919: [41] [42] Grand master 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Hewsen allows all of his work to be posted freely as long as he is cited as the author. Even the originals from the Atlas can be posted if a good scan is available. E-mail and ask him. Sardur, Gm's claim that those sources support Baku87's map are flase. Those sources are simply the only ones they were able to find long after the map was created. That's all they got, hence the redundancy. See my above post about the inconsistencies.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Eupator, I know ^^ Sardur ( talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  You obviously (again!) did not read my comment, please explain the contradiction between the maps you provided and the irredentist drawing by Baku87. I'm tired of you repeating the same old refuted arguments without moving forward. I can only interpret such behaviour as stonewalling. Moreover, the first map is compleatly worthless, since it does not provide any borders to begin with. Do you think by just posting any links people are goign to take them at face value? Your comparison with Hewsen's map does not make any sense, Hewsen's map is supported by Hewsen's scholarly work, Baku87 drawing is not even supported by the sources you provided which he didn't even know existed when he created the map. If you have any new arguments, please provide them, you are repeating what has been already refuted. Above you also claim that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia were de Jure recognized. This is not true, the United States of America recognized Armenia, de Jure, Armenia even signed an official treaty (Sevres) as a de Jure recognized Nation. Even with the treaty signed between the Ottoman Empire and Azerbaijan, the Ottoman Empire did not recognize Azerbaijan as an independent nation (while it did with Sevres). Lastly, Hewsen's map is supported by the near replica produced by National Geographic, which visited the Republic of Armenia at the time. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

We don't need any original research here. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia had only de-facto recognition, which was not equal to de-jure recognition, and they had no internationally recognized borders. I suggest you have a look at this book: [43], called Stefan Talmon. Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile. Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN  0198265735, 9780198265733. It says:

Page 61: The de facto recognition of the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan was also referred to as 'recognition of de facto independence' IL no 77. at 922-5: ibid.. IIL no 655. at 768. On the de facto recognition of the Armenian Government in general, see Hovanisian, The Republic of Armenia (1982) For the interchangeable use of 'de facto recognition' and 'recognition as a de facto government' with regard to the recognition of the Armenian Government, see also [1920] III FRUS 775-8

Page 64: See also the US recognition of 'the de facto Government of the Armenian Republic' on 23 Apr. 1920 ([1920] III FRUS 778). From the correspondence between the US Ambassador to France, Mr Wallace, and the Department of State it becomes clear that what was intended was 'de facto recognition'. Compare ibid.. 775-8. See also the circular of the Swiss Political Department of 22 Sept. 1920, which states that Armenia is 'recognized only de facto by the Allies': Klarer. Schweizerische Praxis der volkerrechtlichen Anerkennung (1981). In the meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, held in Paris on 10 Jan. 1920 the British Foreign Secretary. Lord Curzon advocated the 'recognition of the 'de facto' Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan'. What was meant was de facto recognition.

Page 83: On 10 January l920 the Supreme Allied Council at Paris gave de facto recognition to the Governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan. On 15 January l920 the meaning of de facto recognition was explained to the Georgian and Azerbaijani Delegations to the Paris Peace Conference at the Quai d'Orsay. M. Jules Cambon stated that 'from that moment the Conference could enter into regular relations with the delegations of these Republics, and the delegates, and the delegates, on their part, could present to the Conference the necessary materials, notes, etc.

So as you can see, Armenia and Azerbaijan both had de facto recognition, and there are conflicting sources on which territories they actually controlled. So I see no point in deleting one point of view and keeping the other. Grand master 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Notice how Grandmaster again completely ignored all of the points above and went offtopic. Cherry picking again, since it was recognized De Jure. See also: Histoire et géopolitique des Balkans de 1800 à nos jours by Ernest Weibel p.641. Another one, a legal publication, Revue génerale de droit international public, droit des gens, histoire diplomatique, droit pénal, droit fiscal, droit administratif Publié by A. Pedone, 1922, p. 368. DRA signed a legal treaty, in which it is said that its independence is recognised, including by Turkey.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC) See here: [44] The recognition extended to Armenia was 'to the government of the Armenian State as a de facto Government on the condition that this recognition in no way prejudges the question of the eventual frontiers': ibid. pp. reply

Recognition in International Law. CUP Archive. ISBN  1001284348, 9781001284347

Thus, no frontiers were officially recognized. Grand master 13:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As for the claims that this map somehow infringes copyright, they are baseless. This map is not a verbatim copy of the maps used as sources, as you can see this map is colored, and does not repeat any artistic elements (if there are any) of the source maps. It only shows the same borders as those shown in the source maps, and the facts are not copyrighted. By the same token we should delete all other maps in Wikipedia, if the borders shown on them happen to coincide with those shown on some published maps. Plus, 2 of the source maps were published by the government of Azerbaijan in 1919, so they are PD. Grand master 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The facts ? Which facts ?? and your parallelism with other maps doesn't stand if their sources are free or if their use is allowed. Sardur ( talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Moreover, your view on copyright are not right, as I know of a similar problem on Commons resulting in a map being deleted. Sardur ( talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

So you are basically saying that when creating maps users should not use any sources as references and rely only on their fantasy? It is the same as writing the articles, one should refer to reliable sources, and it is not copyright violation. Same with the maps, if you refer to a source, you do not violate copyright. You just cite a source for the information. Grand master 14:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No I am not. I'm saying that when creating maps users should use free sources or should ask to the author for permission to use a map. If they don't, either there's a copyright issue, or there's an OR issue. Which is the case with this map.

That's of course completely different with text. Sardur ( talk) 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. This map is legit and provided by sources so I don't see any reason for deletion. Alakbaroff ( talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Alakbaroff ( talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• "legit"?? about the sources: see above. Sardur ( talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Historical map of Azerbaijan with sources [45], [46], [47]-- Baki66 ( talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  The first "source" is showing quite different maps. The second "source" has absolutely no comment. For the third "source", see above. Sardur ( talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Let's not forget to note that those maps from the highly partisan Azerbaijani website have wiped the word "Armenia" from all the maps, whether it's the Arshakuni kingdom or the Bagratuni.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. It seems that map was based on the official map prepared by ADR Foreign Ministry. Ateshi- Baghavan 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  How do you explain that it displays a modern border which is different than the equivalent border of 1918-1920 then ? see my very first post here. Sardur ( talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure. Borders of Azerbaijan on the map are the reflexion of those declared by the government of ADR in 1918. I personally do not see a reason to ponder over this any further. Parishan ( talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Azerbaijan declared all of south eastern Transcaucasia as part of its territory; nevertheless, that didn't make it part of Azerbaijan and that didn't reflect the reality on the ground, especially in Karabakh and Nakhichevan. Must we really remind everyone that Azerbaijani maps in 1918-1920 showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas (i.e. present-day Turkey)? The admins are advised to take a look at Baku87's more egregious offense comes up with this supposed depiction of Azerbaijan in the year 2000, which should be nominated for deletion ASAP. Once more, not a single source that has depicted those borders precisely has been presented as of yet. Lebensraum indeed.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  Can I see a source for the claim that "Azerbaijani maps in 1918-1920 showed Azerbaijan stretching from the Caspian to the Black Seas (i.e. present-day Turkey)"? Of course, this is not true. And how Baku87's other maps are relevant to this discussion and this particular map? If there are issues with them, they should be discussed separately. And the sources have been provided. Grand master 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  For info: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 26#Baku Earthquake 2000.jpg Sardur ( talk) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

See Richard G. Hovannisian's article " The Republic of Armenia" in The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century on page 317. Baku87's other fake map just shows how he either does no research to support his claims or just copy pastes everything that is found on Azeri websites. -- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 07:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I've never seen the maps of Azerbaijan extending to the Black see. The official maps of Azerbaijan are the ones discussed here, and they are not extending that far. Does any neutral source agree with Hovanissian about that? Also, note that this author kind of agrees that Armenia had no control over Nakhichevan. On the same page 317: The Muslim-populated districts to the south of Erevan refused to acknowledge the authority and officials of the Armenian republic and, with arms and money from Turkey and Azerbaijan, maintained a semiautonomous existence. Grand master 13:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Is that so now Parishan? From the same logic this map of Germany should have the same rationale. But wait a minute, this Reich map actually has a source. Since your claim has already been dismissed, Baku87's map does NOT even match Azerbaijan's irredentist claims. Here are their claims, Kazakh was clearly in Armenia even according to their map. This has been repeated multiple times and you are rehashing what was refuted. The closing admin should consider what Stifle suggested, concensus or not, the decision should be geared towards policies.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• That's the incorrect reading of the map, Eupator. The map you refer to shows the territories in different former governorates of the Russian empire painted in different colors. You see a different highlighting for the territories of Azerbaijan in the former Baku, Elisavetpol and Erivan governorate. Thus, Kazakh is not in Armenia on that map, it is in Azerbaijan, on the territory of the former Elisavetpol governorate. Grand master 13:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete Not supported by sources, completely ignores ADR's other claimed territories, ignores the fact that Kazakh was under Armenian controll etc. In short nationalist wet dreams of Baku87. VartanM ( talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Mind your language VartanM, be civil. Baku87 ( talk) 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment to the closing admin: the map which is voted on comes from this site here, as seen from the other maps on the site, like this and this the map was originally created to represent present day Azerbaijan. This can be further proven from the fact that Baku87 created a map of Baku Earthquake epicenter (in the year 2000) which presented the same borders. More evidence is that we see Xankandi instead of Stepanakert on the map, Xankandi is a modern rename of Stepanakert (there was no city but several villages at that site prior to the foundation of the city). Given this, the map in question is a fabrication coming from an irredentist website which modified the current borders. VartanM ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Another anachronism, proving that this map is completely OR/OI. Thanks! Sardur ( talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Threshold knowledge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Misapplication of WP:SPEEDY and article clearly notable.

I created threshold knowledge some while ago, but it was recently speedily deleted by Deb. I approached Deb about this (you can see our discussions here and here), but Deb said, "I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see any reason to give priority to this discussion", curtailed our discussion and referred me here. I present two arguments. First, the article should not have been speedily deleted according to the policy in WP:SPEEDY. Second, threshold knowledge is notable under WP:GNG in that there are multiple reliable source citations to the idea.

Threshold knowledge, as an article, was not eligible under WP:SPEEDY. Deb speedily deleted the article under A7. As I said to Deb, WP:SPEEDY states A7 "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations", so an article on an academic theory is not covered by A7. WP:SPEEDY even explicitly states that, "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 or A9 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 or A9 under those criteria."

Deb did not offer any particular rebuttal to the A7 issue, but said, "I can assure you there are other speedy categories under which it does qualify." I asked for clarification and Deb suggested the article could be speedied "as lacking context" (i.e. A1). I find it hard to see how the article as created, complete with a clear citation, falls under A1. Deb also said, "it would be reasonable to tag it as a dictionary definition": I disagree and that is not a reason for speedy deletion (A5 only applies after an article has been transwikied and so does not apply here). I can see no criterion on WP:SPEEDY that applies. Moreover, if there is uncertainty about what criteria an article may fall under, WP:SPEEDY advises, "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." I suggested to Deb that it would be more appropriate to take his/her concerns to a WP:AFD, but Deb deferred.

I entirely admit that the article that I created was a stub, three sentences + a citation. As I think I said in my initial edit summary, I was being bold. Deb suggested at one point, "you expect other people to do the work necessary to bring it up to standard". I think what I initially created was of some value, but basically, yes, I do expect other people to improve the article. Isn't that precisely how Wikipedia works? Wikipedia encourages boldness and collaboration and I acted under those principles. Speedy deletions are a very important tool in Wikipedia, but WP:SPEEDY exists as policy and I have sought to apply WP:SPEEDY here. I propose the speedy deletion be overturned and, if anyone so wish, the article be Listed as an AfD.

Threshold knowledge is notable. Threshold knowledge is a theoretical structure in studies of higher education. It was introduced by Meyer and Land, and I included a key reference by them in the article I created:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2003). "Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge – Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising" in Improving Student Learning – Ten Years On. C.Rust (Ed), OCSLD, Oxford.

Another would be:

Meyer JHF, Land R (2005). "Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning" Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.

That paper has already been cited by 8 others according to ISI Web of Knowledge. Meyer and Land have written about threshold knowledge, threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in several papers, but the idea has also now been used by other researchers; for example:

Park EJ, Light G (2009). "Identifying Atomic Structure as a Threshold Concept: Student mental models and troublesomeness" International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 233-258

Baillie C, Goodhew P, Skryabina E (2006). "Threshold concepts in engineering education-exploring potential blocks in student understanding" International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(5), 955-962

Clouder L (2005). "Caring as a 'threshold concept': Transforming students in higher education into health (care) professionals" Teaching in Higher Education, 10(4), 505-517

Google Scholar throws up plenty more candidates, as I said in my prior discussions with Deb. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Note from the deleter: I will not be participating in this debate, except to explain my reasons for deletion. As you see from my talk page, the creator of the article and I had several exchanges, during which it became clear that s/he had no intention of bringing the article up to standard. Had I restored the article because the speedy deletion was possibly on incorrect grounds, I would immediately have deleted it again as lacking context (as I explained in the initial discussion). I could not see how this would resolve the issue, so I spent my time on other things which I felt to be more constructive. Deb ( talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If I might respond to Deb's comment, I find the assertion that I "had no intention of bringing the article up to standard" to be somewhat lacking in good faith as well as in accuracy! In addition, again, I suggest this seems to be missing the whole point of Wikipedia as a collaborative enterprise. It is surely not the responsibility of the creator of an article to make it perfect, as WP:BB and WP:OWN make clear. I remain unclear how Deb's rationale otherwise concords with policy as laid out in WP:SPEEDY. Bondegezou ( talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as A7 only applies to people, groups of people, companies, organizations, and web content, and this article was none of those. Stifle ( talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as not meeting CSD but list for AfD so a discussion can take place for the validity of the GNG claim. DRV is not the forum for a decision on whether the content should be retained - merely to ensure that it is given fair assessment in context of policy and guideline. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn As Stifle says it is not in any of the A7 categories so does not meet that criteria and I cannot see that it would meet the A1 no context criteria either, its seems to be an ok starting stub. Davewild ( talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn As stated above Doesn't fit A7, and I disagree with the idea that it could have also been speedied under no context. I'm not sure that it needs to go straight to AFD, however if someone wants to, that's their choice.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Clearly improper CSD. - Chunky Rice ( talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and I am really surprised that an experienced admin would defend speedy in a case like this. All active admins probably make occasional mistakes, but its our obligation to correct them when pointed out. I checked this discussion--it's on Bondegezou's talk page and I'm even more surprised at the failure to AGF; I hope this is an isolated instance. DGG ( talk) 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There are referenced sources on this; http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/threshold-knowledge-test-TKT.html; http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1882/ - so it is not a speedy deletion candidate. -- Litherlandsand ( talk) 09:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Thanks for those references. The first is actually to an unrelated but similarly named idea, the threshold knowledge test. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per several preceeding editors. Due process & proper procedure is of utmost importance in deletion cases. I'd say this one is in WP:SNOWBALL territory; in fact, I considered closing it myself, but as it's only been open for one day (and I've been far less active here than at WP:CFD), I will leave that task for someone else. Cgingold ( talk) 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• 'Comment A brief comment on my talk p. [48] has unfortunately made it evident that the administrator involved has the intention of continuing to make similar deletions. I am not sure what should be the next step, besides watching carefully for similar and bringing appropriate ones here. DGG ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

  The usual dispute resolution processes will come into play if needed. Stifle ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion" is wrong, it only applies to people, companies/organizations, and web content. This is clearly not any of those. ViperSnake151 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per not A7. -- Kbdank71 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Fred_M._Levin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy Deletion by BOT, was it really a copyright infringement?. Mwalla ( talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Mwalla reply

• I fixed the nomination, which had used a wrong template. The deletion was not, in fact, by a bot, but by SchuminWeb. Stifle ( talk) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I can confirm that the article as written was indeed a copyright violation. Anyone can create a new one that isn't. Stifle ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Close of DRV per Stifles input above, a correct WP:CSD#G12, allow recreation - but that may be redundant as non-copyvio recreation of G12 articles is always allowed. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Fad diet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This cat has been speedily deleted (G4) based on the discussion of the similar category where the main argument was "this category is not NPOV". The discussion did not seem to include any science/medical editors. Since Fad diet clearly states that these diets are often unscientific, and the ArbCom has ruled that Category:Pseudoscience is okay, I am asking for this decision to be reviewed as the closing admin has declined to undelete. I think it's feasible to populate this category from reliable sources. For instance the American Dietetic Association has a list of fad diets here. So, I'm invoking principle 3, i.e. new information not previously discussed. Xasodfuih ( talk) 09:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, seems to me like an attempt to make an end run around the consensus at the CFD. ArbCom doesn't have jurisdiction on content issues. Stifle ( talk) 09:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Consensus can change—that is the basis for principle 3, listed on WP:DELREV. I think I've outlined above substantial new information not previously discussed, so dismissing this as end-run seems arbitrary to me. Arguing that a small number of editors can forever the decide the future of this category when that discussion was not advertised to the interested WikiProjects is the real end-run around consensus. Xasodfuih ( talk) 09:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • It can, but it rarely changes that fast. There is (correctly) no requirement in the deletion process to notify every editor/WikiProject/etc. of a request to delete any page that might concern them, as it would be literally impossible to ensure the process was followed in such a case. Stifle ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • For the record: I was not aware of the deletion of the original Category:Diet and food fads (or of the discussion that took place there) when I created Category:Fad diet. Xasodfuih ( talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Strong undelete Diet is important to both WP:MED and WP:SKEPTICS. If a small group behind virtual closed door makes a decision without the involvement of all parties this is not wiki democracy. And thus not a binding decision. I agree with Xaso that this is an important category and that there are good references to justify its existence and which diets should be included.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • But then, as I'm sure you recall, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also, CfD isn't exactly a "virtual closed door", it's a project page and a part of the deletion process. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• This needs a new discussion. Consensus can change. DGG ( talk) 13:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• While I agree that consensus can change, this CfD was closed only two weeks ago, do we see any tangible evidence beyond the objection of the nom for this DRV that this has occurred? Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Many articles in the scientific literature refer to fad diets. see

• Ness-Abramof R, Apovian CM (February 2006). "Diet modification for treatment and prevention of obesity". Endocrine. 29 (1): 5–9. doi: 10.1385/ENDO:29:1:135. PMID  16622287.

• Mobley C (January 2008). "Fad diets: facts for dental professionals". J Am Dent Assoc. 139 (1): 48–50. PMID  18167384.

• Ruden DM, Rasouli P, Lu X (June 2007). "Potential long-term consequences of fad diets on health, cancer, and longevity: lessons learned from model organism studies". Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6 (3): 247–54. PMID  17535033.

• In evidence based medicine we have a saying called "show me the evidence". Here are three reviews that substantiate this term. One of my concerns is that what we have here is that those who wish to promote fad diets want to disassociate themselves with this term due to its negative connotation. However this term has a negative connotation because it is rightfully deserving of it and this is supported by the literature.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• The discussion here is not whether there are "fad" diets, whether people percieve some diets as "fads" or not, or whether the fad diet page should exist. The concern here is whether it is possible to assign a page about a diet the categorization [[Category:Fad diet]] without inherently breaking NPOV. Generally, whether a diet is a fad diet or not will be debated not only between diet followers but also between medical professionals (see for example Atkins diet - some would call it a fad, others would call it absolute, irrevocable, truth - both are POV). The only way to avoid this being POV would be to introduce a word making it an observation Category:Diets considered fads by some - but that in turn wouldn't be in line with WP:WEASEL. I don't think there is a good case for this. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Whether a particular diet is sufficiently unscientific to be categorized as fad surely can be discussed based on the level of evidence and the credibility of sources making the assertion, but the deletion of the category prevents any such discussion from taking place. For another example and further reasoning, see my comment further below. Xasodfuih ( talk) 01:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted - no clear case for consensus being different then it was 2 weeks ago. This categorization is still inherently POV, no less so than [[Category:Wrong religions]] or [[Category:Bad ideas]]. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's more like Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Fringe science because stuff in those categories is usually described that way by most. See Wikipedia:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories and NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to both sides. Xasodfuih ( talk) 06:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Deletion is fully justified IMHO. Deb ( talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why? Xasodfuih ( talk) 06:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, rationale and arguments were sound. I am sure there is scope for a prose article on bogus diet and food fads, but in this case a category is a little hard to maintain in an NPOV fashion - the only diet I don't consider a fad is the ELF diet, but since i managed to lose over 40lb and 8" round the waist in three months while not reducing my food intake, perhaps I am not the best person to judge that. Which is rather the point, in fact. Guy ( Help!) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The only diet which is not a fad is the DASH diet and the low calorie diets. All the rest are.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As amply explained above, there are reliable scientific bodies that describe certain diets as fad. We don't have to engage in WP:OR to make that decision. The second point to make is that the goal of a diet need not be weight loss, although nowadays it most often is. Fad diets often make other unscientific claims like curing you of a boatload of diseases etc. Xasodfuih ( talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No, the ELF diet (as in: Eat Less Food) is the only one that actually works in 100% of cases :-) Guy ( Help!) 23:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Restore If "Category:Fad diet" is merely a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience", on what basis should the first category be deleted, but not the second. Of course, the fad diet category should be used with caution, but, where appropriate, it can be useful to the reader, IMO. Whether or not an article is tagged should be discussed on the talk page beforehand as with the pseudoscience tag. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If "Category:Fad diet" is restored, it should be included as a subcategory of "Category:Pseudoscience". -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• An example: Fit for Life is a diet I had added to Category:Fad diet. Please note that "fad diet" is attributed to ADA in the text. I don't think it's practical to create Category:Fad diet according to XXX for all relevant organizations (occasionally NHS make this kind of commentary too, etc.) I assume this practical issue resulted in the ArbCom decision on the categorization of what is "generally considered pseudoscience". I have asked the ArbCom to clarify if the decision applies to diets or not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Clarification: The essence of the 2006 Pseudoscience Arbcom decision has been added to the NPOV policy on Feb 12, 2009; I suspect that many are unaware of this change. Xasodfuih ( talk) 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• • • An excellent point Xaso. Basically most diet fall under obvious pseudoscience. A few are generally considered pseudoscience. And only a couple actually have scientific evidence for them. I presume the decisions here are to follow those decided at the ArbComm-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I don't see what has changed since the CFD. -- Kbdank71 14:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as appropriate response to CFD but support restoration. The deleting admin did nothing wrong by applying G4, given the result of the CFD, but the category is an appropriate subcategory of Pseudoscience and should be kept. There was not adequate discussion at the CFD. THF ( talk) 15:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - The crux of the issue, which seemingly has not been fully grasped by those who are arguing in favor of this category, is that Categories are fundamentally different from Articles. On the one hand, articles about diets can and should address the issues of efficacy and scientific validation, etc. in an NPOV manner, as well as discussing criticism -- always relying on clearly cited sources. That is something that cannot be done with a category. When it comes to category names there is a higher burden with respect to NPOV concerns -- and inherently pejorative terms like "fad" are strongly frowned upon. If your basic objective is to slap a label on these articles in order to stigmatize particular diets, that is a misuse of the Category system.

That said, it may be possible to come up with a neutral, non-pejorative term that would allow diets of this general sort to be categorized together so as to better organize the contents of Category:Diets and assist our readers in navigating that category. Perhaps something incorporating the notion of scientific validation (or lack thereof) -- but please don't hold me to that, it's just a "top of the head" suggestion, and I'm sure there are other approaches that could also be explored. Feel free to run your ideas by me on my talk page. Cgingold ( talk) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you think that "fad diet" is more pejorative that "fringe science"? We have a category for the latter. Fad means "an interest followed with exaggerated zeal". Is that worse than fringe? Fad diet is also an established term (as is fringe theory). Surely we could have a Catergory:Pseudoscietific diets, but that's not as common in medical literature, and could give rise to wikilawyering "source said fad diet not pseudoscietific diet" etc. Xasodfuih ( talk) 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Agree with those who explain the particular reasons why a category is unsuitable but the statement "XX is considered a fad diet[1]" in an article could be fine. The category system is largely useless for contestable attributes. Take note of the ArbCom decision not to allow merely "questionable science" to be categorised as pseudoscience. A "fad" diet like Atkins is not pure pseudoscience in the way homeopathy is; the science underlying has been questioned. Colin° ^Talk 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, that articulates it much better than I did. Categories are great for some things, not so for others. This is one of those there others. Guy ( Help!) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion (closing admin). I was the admin who closed the CfD and speedily deleted the new category, so obviously I endorse what I did. But I held off on commenting to read some of the submissions here, but nothing here has changed my mind. (Note, of course, that if re-created this should be the plural Category:Fad diets.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - deletion discussion closed correctly, the soi disant new information presented here does not establish a case for overturning. Otto4711 ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Joyce McKinney ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I have created a properly cited and neutral stub article at User:Timtrent/Joyce McKinney and wish to move it over the salted page. I imagine the original deletion was because of the controversial nature of the subject. BLP is stated as the reason. But correct citation and non inclusion of libellous drivel ought to allow the page to be part of Wikipedia. Naturally I am content that people enhance the stub while it sits in "my" user space. I do not have admin rights so cannot see the deleted page. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted The article focuses entirely negative aspects of the person and gives them undue weight. Also, since she was never actually convicted, it is inappropriate to make the accusation no matter how well sourced it is. - Mgm| ^(talk) 05:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Wikipedia is not about fairness. It is about documenting in an encyclopaedic manner that facts as seen as verifiable and notable in reliable sources. One cannot exclude things as a matter of taste. This person has hit the news in two ways, first as a highly notable and verifiable set of criminal allegations that led to charges in the late 1970s and second as the first cloner of pets. In 1978 there was massive UK news coverage about her. That she doubtless leads a good and pleasant life today is not the aspects about her life that are notable, despite, presumably, being verifiable. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 07:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted per Mgm. The public interest test, if you will, is failed. Stifle ( talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Question Please tell us the rational for your statement "The public interest test, if you will, is failed"? While not at all a fan of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we do have many notorious folk documented on WP, by no means all of whom are no longer living. And this person received substantial news coverage for each of her exploits. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 11:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I think Uncle G expressed what I'd like to say far better than I possibly could. Stifle ( talk) 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• The intent of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event is not addressed with this re-creation. M. McKinney has, as she is quoted as stating, avoided celebrity, and is not a person whose life and works have been publicly documented. She also maintains that the portrayal of her by the tabloid press in the 1970s is far from accurate.

  It's better to cover the event, not the person, in cases such as this. Take your cue from another encyclopaedia, the Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture (ISBN 9780415147262), which doesn't cover this as if it were a biography. It covers it on page 489, in its entry for "sex scandals". Other sources, similarly, cover this as a case (variously the "Manacled Mormon", the "Mormon sex-slave case", the "Mormon sex-in-chains case", and so forth). There's some scope for writing about this as a case, not the least of which is analysis of how the newspapers reported it.

  Remember the words from a big green box here at Deletion Review: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Uncle G ( talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep Deleted, agreeing with Uncle G, the event seems notable and probably motivates an article if sufficient WP:RS can be found. The person, however, seems streched - not because the article is "all negative" (there are notable people with few or no redeeming features) but because the person is not notable outside the context of the single event. WP:BLP1E could be contested on grounds of the cloned dog, but this being the same person is a question of speculation and uncertainty. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw. I see the point that people are making. I will redraft the article as a document about the event over the next few days. Thank you all for your guidance. I don't necessarily agree with you but I see no reason to argue further against a solidly building consensus now I see the basis of it. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Request would it be possible, please,for me to see the original deleted article in case it has any relevant references in it? Email will be fine for that. If no refs please do not bother. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • The only source that it has is a book of quotations. You already had more than that at the beginning of this discussion. I note the existence of Mormon sex in chains case. ☺ I don't think that deleted content will be of any use to you. You are already beyond it. What will be of use to you now are more sources, of which there are some. Uncle G ( talk) 02:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Many thanks. In that case let us close this review as withdrawn and move towards Featured Article status ☺ Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 08:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Cunard/Article/BookRags ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache | MfD)| AFD1| AFD2) This article was deleted in 2007 because the article did not show why BookRags is notable. I have rewritten the article in my userspace and present it to the community to decide whether or not it deserves inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard ( talk) 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation (if there are people who disagree, I think it's at least worth an extensive mention in the now-parent company. (that article should cite the business article about the acquisition rather than a press release) - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the suggestion! I've added some of the acquisition information into the parent article. Cunard ( talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation Rewritten in a good manner. Coaster7 ( talk) 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation, though I never like Alexa stats. But the rest work for me! Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Looks fine to me. Trusilver 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation per Trusilver. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation per Trusilver. – Warrington ( talk) 22:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation meets the notability requirements, and is nicely written and presented to boot. Themfromspace ( talk) 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Template:Rulers known as "the Great" ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache)| TFD2)

Rulers known as "the Great" of page|reason=The reason for deleting this page was that there is no connection between the rulers who have appended the phrase "the Great" to their name. There is no doubt that there is generally little or no historical parallel between the rulers who have this title to their names, but the fact is that they do indeed have that title in common. And that is exactly what is the point of this template. Some rulers are generally known for "the Great" in their titles and this template serves to provide information about the wide variety of examples of this usage of this title. Furthermore it seems like a very shaky foundation to call the deletion of this template a consensus based on 5 positive votes in 7 days. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 00:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, which was unanimous. Most TFDs don't get even that many comments. DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've also fixed formatting on this DRV and moved it to the correct day's log. Stifle ( talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Oppose deletion. So I guess what I should have done when I oppose a TFD is, instead of going the bureaucratic way, was to have just reinstated the templates manually? As that would have at least sparked the interest of the people who actually maintains the articles instead of the handful of people that frequents the TFD? -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I've struck your "oppose deletion" comment, because by listing here, it is already clear that you oppose the deletion of the template. Placing additional bolded "votes" may make it appear as though your position has more support than it actually does. Please prefix additional comments with Comment. Stifle ( talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • … or don't prefix them with anything at all. Closing administrators can read, and can tell when a simple discussion contribution is just that, without any boldfaced words. Uncle G ( talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per community consensus expressed at the TFD. Erik9 ( talk) 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The TFD asserted that the template linked together rules that are unrelated through encyclopedic or historical rather than lexicographical means. Perhaps a disambiguation page is more suitable. (in that case the template history needs to be moved into articlespace without a redirect prior to creation to sort out attribution requirements). - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The discussion was closed correctly, which is all we are discussing here. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, reason given for overturning is not procedural or policy-related, this is not TfD round 2. Guy ( Help!) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - There was clear consensus at the TfD, and I see no valid reason to overturn the deletion. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no matter which way you can spin it, a 5-0 vote for deletion in a TfD is a consensus. Themfromspace ( talk) 01:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • But a lot of them did address the issue as if it were an article that they were discussing, rather than a navigation template, which is what this was, and is, used as. (The Indonesian Wikipedia even classifies its equivalent as such, even though we didn't.) I don't see any discussion in the TFD discussion of why readers should not be able to find one "the Great" from another, or why the common navigation elements of these various articles' "See also" sections, linking other "the Greats" as "See also" articles, shouldn't be put into a template in order to aid consistency and maintenance. Do you?

    There's also scant evidence that the people arguing that such a connection between all these articles was original research really looked at the template itself, or indeed followed the TFD nomination, otherwise they would have followed the link at the top of the template to List of people known as The Great#"The Greats" and would be there complaining right now. Uncle G ( talk) 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Contrary to Uncle G's comment, reading the TFD, most of the opiners clearly differentiated between the template that they were discussing and the relevant article - though many of them suggested that the article probably should also be deleted. But they didn't go so far as to nominate it themselves - but that is a common behavior pattern in AFD when an other stuff exists argument is made - nobody goes and deals with the other stuff. The TFD consensus is clear, and it seems equally clear that they knew they were opining on the deletion of a navigation template. GRBerry 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Really? Simon Burchell says that it's "not a topic", which is unequivocally an article argument. Black Falcon says that the grouping is original research, but that would seem to have only weak application to what is, in essence, no more than a collection of ordinary "See also" links, and again be an article argument not a navigation template one. Uncle G ( talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ioquake3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

This entry was deleted for being non-notable when it is, in fact, the defacto standard in Quake 3 engine technology on which many projects both commercial and noncommercial free software games are based on it. I created ioquake3 in 2005 and it has continued since then with the help of many contributors. To say that it is irrelevant does the project and those that use it a severe disservice and I think contributes to the overall discouragement of smaller open source and free software projects, as if they and the contributions made to them are without merit. id software created the original code base and released it onto the internet. To say that projects based on the original source release are not notable is like saying that it wouldn't be notable if Ray Bradbury released a book under a creative commons license solely to the net and someone took that and made an entirely new and interesting work of fiction based on it. I have already attempted to contact and discuss this matter with the admin who deleted it, Rjd0060, to no reply. This is the second time that the ioquake3 page has been deleted, both times it seems as if the administrators of wikipedia either do not understand or do not care about open-source software. I find it somewhat discouraging that an mostly internet-published encyclopedia cannot find notable an internet published open source project, or as with the original delete in 2007, it was regarded as an advertisement?! TimeDoctor ( talk) 19:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

I want to contest the deletion of this page. It is notable enough to have a page. There are sources in books, it has a page at distrowatch and is often mentioned in Linux-related magazines such as [49] Linux Format. I could not find any active policy to weigh the notability of software because the one at Wikipedia:Notability (software) is kept for historical reference only. I left a message on admins talk page two days ago [50], apparently he/she is busy in offline life Magic.Wiki ( talk) 06:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Jim Cara (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)| AfD2)

Maybe I have not jumped to toot my own horn or have management do so, but I've never been one to self promote and maybe my Wiki has been too broad while my significant achievements have been in the guitar business. Still, we have been chosen and featured as one of the top 5 guitar builders in the world by the major guitar publication, and have surpassed some major players. http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2009/Feb/5_Hot_Rodders_You_Should_Meet.aspx I will see to it that insignificant references are quickly deleted. Also GOOGLE and find that there are many people who have created negative press do to us being on wili with such a wide, broad list of achievements. We have many contenders to what we do, and are targets of people who have more success than us, but get less attention. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.250.46 ( talk • contribs)

• Please be aware that this is not wiki, it is Wikipedia (does someone have that nice Wikipe-tan image about that?). You are more than welcome to write about Jim Cara on your own website. Endorse deletion as the deletion process was properly followed. Stifle ( talk) 10:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion, no sign of process not being followed, policy and guidelines grossly misinterpreted or of any irregularity. The closure of the first AfD may have been marginal to no-consensus but there is nothing unclear about the consensus in the second one. If the subject of this biography feels notable, my recommendation is either to create a sourced, clear, NPOV article in userspace or articles for creation which demostrates verifiable notability supported by reliable sources. Once that article is complete, any of AfC, RfC or DRV (like, here) can be an appropriate venue to suggest recreation. It may however be a good idea to review Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before writing such an article. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

After reviewing the discussion for the deleted page for this band, it appears its under administrative protection as its being constantly barraged. As the original talk page was deleted, I'm only assuming vandalism is the reason why it was disposed of, deriving my guess off the deletion log information (I mention this so you would pardon me if I had made a mistake). If this isn't the reason why the page was deleted, and it was deleted for the article not having any notability, the band's recent notoriety makes it so they have been sourced on many primary and secondary sources, their recent album release as of this week (February 17th, 2009) by a major record label (Tragic Hero Records) provides just about as much reason to keep the article as, per say, any other band signed to the label. I propose a history-only undeletion and the new and improved article to be placed under administrative protection to keep from being vandalized. TofuMaster00 ( talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• For pages like this which have been deleted several times and protected, we usually suggest a userspace draft before restoring them. Could you do one up? Stifle ( talk) 10:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. In reviewing the edit history, the last deletion was pure nonsense and the title had been barraged by a combination of non-notability and, well, garbage. I'm 110% in favor of an article if it meets the standards. Admins, feel free to overturn my protection once a user draft is complete. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Altsoft (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) After my reasoning not to delete the page "Altsoft", it was deleted without reasoning on the "My Talk" page. I made the case that "Altsoft" was not using Wikipedia for any advertising or promotional purposes. It was providing some encyclopedic content about the company. I flagged the article with "resque" template thereby indicating that I need some help. I made it clear that we want to get some recommendations and steps to take in order not to be deleted,but still was not given that chance. Please provide me with what I need to do to set up a respected page (Altsoft) on Wikipedia. Thanks you. If possible, please provide the response to [email redacted]. Aimonai ( talk) 19:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I've moved this request from yesterday's DRV page (where it was added) to today's and fixed some formatting. Stifle ( talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (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. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle ( talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I thought that just putting "resque" template was enough to mark that we need help in developping the article. But I mistook. I tried to express my point of view on my talk page (it was the answer to the user FreeRangeFrog who nominated the page for delition). Though thank you for help. Aimonai ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • the statement there was advice, not policy.(good advice, by the way--it can solve some problems like this) Attempts to make it policy have not been successful, nor should they be, for all nonobstructive ways of appealing admin decisions are beneficial. DGG ( talk)
    • I'm already aware of (and have acknowledged in my message) your opinion of those instructions; repeating it isn't doing either of us any good. Stifle ( talk) 10:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • DRV isn't a second AFD. If you want to have an article on Wikipedia, the best way is to ignore us and concentrate on making your company notable. yandman 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Please, Could you specify what do you mean under the word "notable" and "notability"? Our company exists as is, we do our work and have our own customers that are satisfied with our products and our service. We produce software that helps people employed in publishing sphere. Of course the products we produce have prototypes, but we think that our soft has better compatibility and supports more input and output formats. Could you please make some suggestions on how we can make our company more notable? Aimonai ( talk) 16:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
      • In wikipedia terms notability mean significant (ie. not just a sentence or two) coverage in reliable secondary (i.e. no connection with the subject of the article itself) sources. For companies the relevant notability guideline is here - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Davewild ( talk) 16:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Thank you, Davewild. We will try do develop our article. Aimonai ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
          • It's not your article. Also, read User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. Uncle G ( talk) 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, no problem with process, deleting admin went the extra mile and double-checked with a Google test, AfD was open for five days. Guy ( Help!) 21:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion as deletion process was correctly followed. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, obviously an example of self-promotion. Process correctly followed, article correctly deleted, nominator's claims about the subject are irrelevant, and likely biased. Mango juice ^talk 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Friends Stand United (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Without revisiting the reasons for deletion, it seems obvious that this should be a redirect to Elgin_James#FSU. Wareh ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I have no concerns with this but do not see the need to recreate the old history before creating the redirect. Be bold, create the redirect, and close the DRV. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 15:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm assuming "be bold" is advice to an administrator, because the page is locked, and I cannot create the redirect myself. Wareh ( talk) 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Conceeded point - didn't notice that the page itself was protected. That being observed, I'll simply support this. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• No objection to that. Stifle ( talk) 16:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
• I've created a protected redirect. Hope that's ok with everyone. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The article was PRODed and deleted after five days for the reason that the player had "No appearances in a professional league, fails WP:BIO." While this might have been true at the time when the article was created, it is not any more, since he now plays for the second-level team of Bryne F.K. ( player page). I didn't have a chance to save the article in time, but I would like for it to be restored so I can update it. -- Lampman ( talk) 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Accepted Process for overturning an Prod, even after the fact, is to contact the deleting admin, in this case User:Malcolmxl5, and requesting the same. I have notified him of this DRV - which can probably be closed as SNOW/Contested PROD and the article restored. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• I already notified him, you just duplicated my message. Lampman ( talk) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

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

I am the person who created the page for Eleazar (painter) - I believe you are the administrator who deleted the page, aren’t you? If so, can we please review this deletion? First of all, it’s necessary to say that I only understand a little English. Apart from that, I want you to know that Eleazar is a notable painter because he is known in Spain, specially Barcelona, and in other European countries like Switzerland (specially the canton of the Jura). I enclosure a selection of his Curriculum Vitae with his lasts exhibition. In addition, you have to know that Eleazar has been selected by the FIFA in representation of Spain for the exhibition that will take place on the occacion of the South Africa 2010 World Cup; a exhibition that will cross 32 countries around the world.

Solo Exhibitions: (Selectión) 2008 Imaginart-Gallery. “La Familia”. Barcelona / Ermita de Santa Margarida de Fontarnau. Osona

2007 Galería Carmen Torrallardona. Andorra / Antigua Capilla del Hospital de Sant Sadurní d’Anoia. “Sants i Martirs” / Galería Paqui Delgado “Diosas”. Sant Sadurni d’Anoia. Barcelona / Galería C’an Pinos. “Ellas”. Palma de Mallorca

2006 Galería Contrast Montcada. In Memoriam (Made in Spain). Barcelona

2005 Galería Multiplicidad. "El Quijote". Madrid / Galería Contrast. "Tontos, Bufones, Reyes y Princesas". Barcelona / Galería C.Torrallardona. "Estoy todo el tiempo pensando en mis cosas". Andorra / Galería Courant d'Art. "Artistas Catalanes en el Jura". Chevenez. Suiza.

2004 Galería La Santa. Barcelona.

2003 Galería Courant d’Art. Chevenez. (Suiza).

2001 Galería Camilla Hamm. Barcelona / Conservatori Superior de Música del Liceu. Barcelona.

2000 Galería Boto de Roda. Torroella de Montgrí. Girona / Galería Art Contrast . Barcelona.

1996 Galería Elite Art. Barcelona

1994 Galería Gloria de Prada. Barcelona.

1992 Galería Perfil. Barceloa

1986 Casa de Cultura de Los Llanos de Aridane (Canarias) / Caja de Ahorros de Santa Cruz de la Palma (Canarias).

1984 Librería Epsilon. Barcelona

1982 Casa de Cultura de Castelldefels. Barcelona

1979 Galería Melchor. Sevilla.

Groups Exhibitions (Selectión)

2008 Scope Art Fair. Imaginart Gallery. London / Bridge Art Fair. Imaginart Gallery. Berlín. / Galería Carme Espinet. Barcelona / Imaginart Gallery. Barcelona

2007 Capella de Sant Antoni. Torroella de Montgri. Girona / L’Oum Errebia. Azemmour. Marruecos

2006 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Galería Courant d’Art. Chevenez. Suiza / Galería Contrast. Barcelona

2005 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Centro Cultural de Burriana. Castellón / Casa de la Música. Villarreal / Diputación Provincial.Castellón.

2004 Art Forum Copenhagen 2004. Copenhagen / Galería Contrast. Barcelona / Galeria Courant d’Art. Chevenez. Suiza

2003 Feria Estampa. Galería Multiplicidad. Madrid / Artexpo: Galería Contrast. Feria de Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona

2001 Univesitat Internacional de Catalunya. Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona / New Art. Galería Camilla Hamm. Barcelona / Galería 98. Cadaqués. Girona / Pati Llimona. Ayuntament de Barcelona / Artexpo: Galería Boto de Roda. Feria de Barcelona / Fundació Internacional Josep Carreras. (Lleida y Tremp) / Galería Art Contrast: “El Circo”. Barcelona.

1999 Galería Rrose Selavy: “Compact Art”. Barcelona / Galería Marc 3: “Quin te n’enduries al vint-i-ú?”. Barcelona / Galería Contrast: “Bestiari: Zoo 2000”. Barcelona.

1998 Galería Boto de Roda. Torroella de Montgrí. Girona. 1995 Galería Periferi-Art. Lleida / Galería Gabarro Art. Sabadell / Teatre Villarroel. Barcelona.

1993 Premi Ricard Camí. Caixa de Tarrassa / Museu d’Art Modern de Tarragona.

1992 Palau Moia. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona / Galería Perfil. Barcelona / Galería Periferi-Art. Lleida / Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona / Premio Internacional de Pintura “Ybarra 1992”. EXPO 92. Sevilla / IX Premio “Francisco de Goya”. Centro Conde Duque. Madrid.

1984 XXIII Premi Dibuix Joan Miró. Barcelona / Salas de Cultura de la Caja de Ahorro de Navarra: Burlada, Estella, Sagüenza y Tudela / Paraninfo de la Universidad de Barcelona / Caixa d’Estalvis de la Caixa. Tárrega. Lleida

1983 Galería Ramón Sardá. Barcelona