Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page was a redirect to User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie, but was deleted due to WP:CSD#R2: the latter page is in the user namespace. However, I contend that "WP:" can not be considered "article space", and in addition, most mirrors do not copy WP: shortcuts, and request that it be undeleted. Gracenotes^T § 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong undelete. Unless we intend on killing off WP:VPRF... -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - at rfd, the WP: shortcuts are considered to be in the mainspace (because they technically are), and they are pretty much always deleted under R2, no matter how popular a user page is. If there are exceptions to R2, they should be part of the policy. --- RockMFR 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Again with the WP:VPRF example; it's been through RfD, and it got kept. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • There have been a lot of changes regarding the view of cross-namespace redirects since then. I think the main issue here is whether the R2 criterion needs to be changed. Send to rfd and get a read of the current consensus, then we can decide whether R2 needs to be looked at. --- RockMFR 22:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Works for me, although I think the issue is really whether or not shortcuts constitute a pseudo-namespace. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This works for me as well. Gracenotes^T § 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, quite trivial and of interest only to a specific cliques. Works in User space, but I don't see a need for it on the Wikipedia space. --Sn0wflake 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... the point is that such a claim needs discussion. -Amarkov moo! 00:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Amarkov: do you mind if I close this and take it to the CSD talk page? Gracenotes^T § 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, not at all. -Amarkov moo! 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • This debate may or may not need reopening. Gracenotes^T § 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

When deleted, the subject was agreeably not notable. However, The Angry Video Game Nerd is now a popular figure in gaming culture, and has recently participated in television interviews. In my opinion, the character is more than notable for an article in Wikipedia. MrHate 08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse continued protection. Unless you're here to tell us about some new sources or a totally new argument for notability, submitting this to DRV (again) could be considered marginally disruptive. Thunderbunny 08:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and what do you mean "marginally" Thunderbunny? Nardman1 11:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion just like the last 8 times this was brought up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse, no new info. —Cryptic 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Streets in Vancouver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

It is a subcategory that is consistent with all Wikipedia policies, guidelines, conventions, and consensus decisions; the CfD that preceded the deletion did not result in a consensus. There is a related CfD currently in progress here. Bobanny 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to have been a lack of consensus to merge and (given the current discussions) lack of consensus on a standard. On the other hand, there are so few articles currently; maybe there is consensus for cities with only a few articles. Can we maybe redirect the category? --NE2 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete/ot-Because I feel (in the words of Wikipedia:Deletion review) that "the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer." Although I disagreed with the principle of the parent category Category:Streets and squares in Vancouver's creation on March 9, I saw no reason to dispute the basis of this administrator's decision to create it. However, this March 24-30 decision to delete the subcategory at hand follows the same (apparently flawed) logic of streets and squares category precedents that I raised during the discussion. In the decision notes, it is stated that "Despite Keefer's argument, analysis of Category:Streets_and_squares_by_city shows that the cats for most cities are not in fact subdivided into a "street" cat and a "square" cat.". The decision maker has proven in these words, that the "most cities" qualifier used in the decision is their own subjective definition used to advocate the merging of the categories. I had raised the same type of point during the discussion, by pointing out the precedent for "most" cities in North America, which DO consist of separate street and square categories. In addition, none of User: Bobanny's points were addressed specifically in the outcome decision, and the discussion leading to that did not achieve anything resembling consensus. The points made in the final sentence: "It's also rather quickly after an earlier CFD that had the same conclusion, so arguably this cat is recreation of deleted material." is, I feel, erroneous. The earlier CFD (March 9) mentioned, was not of the same subcategory. And, what is being implied in that sentence is that there is a foregone/discussed "conclusion" here stemming from the discussion, which clearly there isn't, as detailed by the lack of consensus. The decision is then made based on what the decision-maker calls "arguably... recreation". To summarize I believe the decision is a flawed one, based on this. Thanks. --Keefer4 | Talk 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for my closing is that I interpreted the fact that ~90% of Category:Streets and squares by city follows the same naming as a naming standard. From recent reactions it seems that this standard is not all that consensually solid, so I would favor more debate on it. In the meantime, I'm overturning my deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radiant! (talk • contribs) 08:07, April 2, 2007 (UTC).

Anthony Vassallo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The page was deleted using PRod:non-notable footballer according to WP:BIO, but the player although not playing for the senior national team, but still playing top level for Malta, although Maltese football may be at semi-professional level. And there is discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players on going.

I put this not Deletion review, because it does not proper process of AFD to delete it under discussion. Per previous Afd results, please for top level football already notable. Ongoing discussion of Notability discussion should not became a reason of Current deletion. Here the player DOB and match record as of 2005-2006 season. [7][8] -- Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirty underwear fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as being non-notable, when it is clearly notable. If Dearcupid.org is not a reliable 3rd-person 3rd-party source, then what else is?? Out-of-process deletion. Kingshockaz 2000 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse valid AfD, with a clear and unmistakable consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The log for this image indicates that it was taken by photographer Jeramey Jannene (a.k.a. User:Grassferry49, a.k.a. compujeramey on flickr), yet it was deleted as "no copyright tag". According to the url in the upload log, it is cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/100075920 which uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. If this is true, it should be restored and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I uploaded the full picture onto Commons and restored this one here. This isn't really a DRV topic. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

See AfD2. Though I voted delete, I'm a bit confused by this deletion though it was closed as no consensus. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other related AfDs:

• Gregory Kohs - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (2) - Delete
• Gregory Kohs (3) - Delete

• DRV - Deletion endorsed

• Very, very weak overturn and relist. Should not have been speedied after surviving an AFD. Very, very weak because only one of the sources there is even remotely reliable, the other sources are either Wikipedia (WP:ASR) or a press release (not independent). If this is relisted, that needs to be made evident: multiple means multiple. --Coredesat 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist, but unless some new information comes to light the decision should be delete. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are a number of related AfD's missing. Anyone can add them? ~ trialsanderrors 00:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added all of the Kohs AfDs. There doesn't seem to have been another AfD for MyWikiBiz, so I'm wondering why this was the "2nd nomination". WarpstarRider 01:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Found it. It was MyWikiBiz.com ~ trialsanderrors 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh, RESTORE. Regardless of why Kohs was LEGITIMATELY banned again, for legal threats, we'd already shown in DRV, AfD, etc. that MyWikiBiz for that article was notable. It was unilaterally deleted by User talk:JzG. - Denny 00:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Really, tired of unilateral deletions against consensus. WP:IAR is not a license to just ignore everyone else and do whatever you want. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Should not have been speedied. I suppose it is reasonable to relist a nonconsensus for another AfD soon afterwards, doing a Speedy is really deliberately defying the rules based, I suppose, on one's personal opposiution.DGG 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - if you're an admin and you're unhappy with the way an AFD turns out, you should be coming here, not just disregarding the community's discussion. Wikipedia is not censored, least of all for "things that annoy JzG", and JzG's personal interaction with Kohs should have made him stay out of the situation in the first place. This was in extremely poor judgment for a variety of reasons. Milto LOL pia 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Aren't these deletions done with the approval of Jimbo? I know Gregory Kohs was blocked by Jimbo for refusing to stop spamming. Corvus cornix 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not according to the log. It had passed DRV + AFD. The deletion was IAR. - Denny 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, don't relist. Seems like we just can't figure out how to apply notability to people that annoy us these days. --tjstrf talk 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Worthless article on worthless subject, propped up by desperate grasping at straws for reliable sources. This is worth all the trouble to keep why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Relist - With a note that "sources" presented at the last AfD, which swayed editors towards saying it marginally met WP:CORP turned out to be obvious duplicates or derivatives of the one independent source we already had. Danski14^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I support the idea of the article's deletion as non-notable, but the closure of the AfD should have been appealed here, to deletion review, not undone by a unilateral deletion. It would be nice if we could treat this DRV as if it were an appeal of the original "no consensus" decision, in which case I would vote to delate, but I'm sure there will be people unwilling to look at it that way. So it seems that there is really now no choice but to start again. Put it back on AfD. Sigh. Metamagician3000 02:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDEL: If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with the deletion policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately can be invoked here. ~ trialsanderrors 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn yet another arbitrary JzG unilateral deletion, something he says he has no intention of stopping. I'll be glad when some admins have a little chat with him. He is driving good editors from the project with these ongoing antics. Jokestress 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times has he done this? Perhaps RFC if its an ongoing issue? - Denny 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a classic case of an admin coming under fire for making a hasty decision. It's easy for any good editor get the admin tools. It's a challenge for that editor to become a successful sysop. And once those tools get revoked for abuse, they're hard to get back. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 04:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; obviously out-of-process. Guy, I would have expected more of you. No opinion on relisting. Ral315 » 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Repasky McElhinney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was surprised to see that the Andrew Repasky McElhinney article has vanished. If its deletion was debated, I wasn't aware of the fact, and I last saw it only a few days ago. McElhinney is an independent filmmaker of some note. Indeed, his second feature, A Chronicle of Corpses, was listed by Dave Kehr of the New York Times as one of the ten best films of 2001. Look him up on the IMDb.

alderbourne 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see the deleted article, but if the article itself did not make any claims of notability, then the deletion was proper. If you want to rewrite the article to indicate what you said above, and can provide proof of your claims, then please go ahead. Corvus cornix 02:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Click on the "cache" link above. The article doesn't lack in assertions of notability, but comes across as a bit advertorial. ~ trialsanderrors 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael S. Greco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

administrator's only reason was that the page constituted copyright infringement, which is simply not accurate. ABAORG 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's national media office, and a practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by administrator SwatJester or someone using that member name. The reasoning offered for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and a legal expert on copyright infringement, I would like an explanation behind this line of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned and operated by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys from all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his national activities as president, his involvement in the Clinton administration, his work for the Dukakis and Weld administrations in Massachusetts, his work as ABA judicial reviewer for federal court appointees, and for and his work with Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association. The ABA has received several inquiries already re: the deletion of the page (why it was deleted, how students and other inquirers can now access that information on President Greco, etc.)

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. We believe it to be a valid and important addition to the growing Wikipedia.org family of knowledge.

Sincerely, J. Nichols

• Endorse and speedy close Copyright violation is of this page at his firm. GRBerry 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore If the ABA Media office claims they wrote it, then the page at his firm was probably copied from the article, not the other way around. However, why is the ABA "maintaining" articles on their membership? James S. 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. (1) if they copied their web page from our article, why are we not credited? This is required. (2) When they say they wrote it, they probably mean that they wrote it on their web page first and copied it to Wikipedia later. (3) If the material on their web site is not copyrighted, they need to make this manifest, otherwise we must assume its under copyright. No predjudice against anyone re-creating the article, written in their own words. Herostratus 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as deleting editor I deleted it as a blatant copyright vio of that page. It was clearly a valid copyright deletion, the copy pasting being incompatible with GFDL attribution. Also, I should note the WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:USER implications of User:ABAORG's actions here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Obvious Conflict of Interest. They don't WP:OWN the article. alphachimp 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above but also there is no proof that J. Nichols is who he says he is. Consider the following posting that I made on WP:ANI.

  Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:abanews@abanet.org them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse If the text is released under GFDL and the images are multi-licensed under GFDL and Creative Commons, then there would be no basis for the article's deletion. The ABA must understand that doing so would enable the text to be edited by anyone. A disclaimer on the talk page or an update of licensing information on their web page should be sufficient. However, the article itself does not clearly establish the notability of the subject with verification from multiple third-party non-trivial sources. Killa Kitty 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The suggestion that they maintained the article sounds like they were using us for free web hosting - well we don't do that. Also, we have clear policies on using copyrighted material and its fine as long as the rights holder contacts OTRS and provides the relevant release. Surely not a problem for them to do if they are who they say they are. Personally, if the guy is notable, it prefer an independantly written and properly cited article but call me old fashioned in that respect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as per several of the above. If this is a legit communication (which i tend to doubt) and if the ABA is prepared to relase their text under the GFDL then it can be recreated. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dust (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unknown John Bolton MBICSc 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Koda Rohan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was speedy-deleted per {{db-bio}}. The original content might have failed to assert his significance but he is a notable author. For example, Britannica has an entry for him[14]. Kusunose 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The deleted article just said they were a Japanese author and gave no further information. As such it made assertion of notability and was rightly deleted. That said, the speedy deletion does not prevent a new article being started if any editor wishes to be bold and create one that does assert notability and is supported by reliable sources. WjBscribe 08:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The deletion was entirely proper as WJscribe says above, but I see what Kusunose means. Let's give him/her the chance to expand it before closing this nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong undelete Extremely notable author. I've undeleted for now, and added to the article a bit including a reference. Definitely an article Wikipedia should not be without. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obviously valid Articles-7 - remember that the question is not whether the author is notable, but whether the article asserted this, which it didn't. Close this review as moot following recreation with assertion of notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Demented Cartoon Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I know I have asked for this before, and I have noted your responses. You all said that the page led to nonsense, and what I claimed (that there was one a pretty informative article that was as good as any other article) was not true. (original request on January 13 2007) I know for a fact that somwhere in the history of the page you will find the version I was talking about. Full of true information about the movie, and quite a long article at that. tDCM is a very popular flash movie, and if you can find the proper version, I'm sure it would be a great re-adition to wikipedia! I am willing to work with an admin to halp him/her find the right version! Please contact me via userpage if you can help me get the proper page restored! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatarfan6666 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

• Endorse deletion, the problem wasn't that the page was nonsense, it's that there was no coverage of the animation in reliable sources or any other evidence that it met the notability standards. Until some one can produce reliable sources that prove otherwise, the page stays deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Taylor Olson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Because it is vitally important to the success of this website, it will attract many new viewers and it is a good contribution. Victorvondoom2007 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jessica9.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was listed for speedy deletion yesterday on grounds that the user that uploaded said she was 9-years old. This is not valid reason for speedy deletion. I removed the tag, but it was deleted anyway. The user's user page has also been deleted, for the same reason, but Wikipedia doesn't have any such policy - in fact that policy was explicitly rejected: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. Nssdfdsfds 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse regardless. Editor has only two edits, the first of which was to add this image to child. We already have plenty of images on that article. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. The user had three edits. The other edit was to create a userpage (which has also been summarily deleted - not just blanked). A user is entitled to have a picture of herself on her userpage without it being deleted. The picture can be removed from child if it is not one of the better pictures on there, but there's no reason to delete it.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn There does not appear to have been a valid reason for a speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse I suspect the account was a trolling attempt of some kind, although exactly what the point of it was I can't tell. New user creates an account, making sure to specify their supposed age (9) not only on their user page but in their user name as well, then uploads a picture (supposedly of themselves?) and adds it to two articles, Child and Girl. Does not seem like something a real 9-year-old would likely do, IMHO. In any case, both articles have plenty of pictures already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As you say, I can't think of any reason why it should be a troll. What's it supposed to be trolling? If you were trolling, you'd probably be posting to lots of pages pretending to be "9-year old Jessica". You wouldn't upload one picture and go away. Seems like the user is exactly what she seems, a 9-year-old girl who wanted to add something to wikipedia, but found that her images and user page were deleted without anybody getting in touch on her talk page to say why.Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedily endorse deletion, I have blocked the uploader as a sock of Belginusanl, who uploaded this image (and others of the same person) before under a different filename, claiming it to be of a 12-year-old. --Coredesat 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well spotted, close this one as it's the same image then. Nssdfdsfds 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party minigames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The deleting admin's closure was entirely opinionated. Radiant! mentioned WP:ILIKEIT arguments, but I don't see any. However, several Delete votes (and the nomination itself) was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Out of all the rants and raves and almost identical votes, it should have been No Consensus as no consensus was formed. The closing admin obviously thought they had an overriding vote, and that is NOT true. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, Radiant made the right decision to close as delete, seeing as the keep arguments weren't grounded in any policies at all. There was a total of one reliable source provided, and it was only peripherally related to the minigames. That tidbit can go in Nintendo#Controversy. Picaroon 17:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WHAT‽‽ There was more than one reliable source. There were 5ish in the references section. If someone thought that those sources were unreliable, that should have been brought up during the AfD. That didn't happen. McKay 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh my, how did I miss that answers.com link? Answers is practically the definition of reliable sources! We must overturn!</sarcasm> Picaroon 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So are you implying now that there were only 2 links? What happened to the other three I'm claiming existed byond that? Also, IIRC, there was reasoning provided for the answers.com link, and why we should treat that article as different than other answers.com links. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. [Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.]
  • "The "delete" arguments are founded in policy and guidelines," Where? Could you be more specific. All of the delete arguments had WP:CONSENSUS stating that the reasons were not founded on policy and guidelines. At best they had Essays saying listcruft.
  • "the "keep" arguments boil down to variants of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL" No, the keep arguments boiled down to "The content is encyclopedic." "The Content is notable." "the content is Attributable."
  • He also makes reference to two supposed quotes, that [Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.] don't appear as quoted:
    1. "no reason given for deletion"
    2. "it was kept in the past"

[Thoughtless and stupid comments removed by the author.] Sure, while there are some who said that, I would not think that those are all the arguments, or even the bulk of them.McKay 18:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (modified 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) by McKay)

• • Whoa. Flatly accusing someone (in bold no less) of lying is pretty uncalled for. Yes you are supposed to WP:AGF but you are also supposed to remain WP:CIVIL and that is clearly uncivil. If you disagree with Radiant's interpretation of the AfD then say so, but flatly calling him a lair is wholly uncalled for. Please be careful to avoid WP:NPA. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Dacium said both of those things, then other people cited his/her reason later in the discussion. Extraneous bold AND italic words! WHOA —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I apologize, I stand by what I said, but I should not have done it how I did it. As Arkyan pointed out, this topic did have extensive debate. Anyone can see that I put a lot of effort into this AfD. When I saw that the result was "delete" I was very surprised, as I thought it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The purpose of the AfD is a discussion on whether or not the article should stay. But it seemed as if he was ignoring everything I had said in the article. I couldn't find any real substance in what he had said that made the article worth deleting. A couple of his arguments had quotes, and I wanted to see what he was talking about, but couldn't find what he was referencing. McKay 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overturn: Per nomination. Henchman 2000 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ifyou look here you will find that he biased his decision on Delete. Henchman 2000 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of this list which belongs on GameFAQs or some such, and strongly admonish anyone who describes legitimate differences of opinion as "lying", an attitude which is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's ethos. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - closing admin made a judgement call on a difficult subject clouded with a lot of heated comment and debate. I support that decision. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I really wish Radiant had not both deleted this article and nominated other such similar articles for deletion. I base this on my belief that whoever closes an XFD should not have participated in the discussion. If an editor has anything in particular to say, s(he) ought to note it in the discussion and leave the closing to someone else. That said, I find McKay's accusation of deceit to be inappropriate, lacking foundation, and in rather poor taste (especially with regard to the means of its expression).

However, let's consider the close itself. In terms of numbers, this was a clear "no consensus" with 12 keeps, 12 deletes, and 1 redirect. But, since AFD is not a headcount, let's also consider the arguments.

Arguments to delete. The two main arguments to delete were: indiscriminate information and lack of attribution. Through the course of the AFD, steps were taken to address the latter problem and a number of references and two paragraphs of prose about the minigames were added. I believe the first was also addressed when the game guide content that was initially present in the article was removed, leaving only the list of minigames with brief descriptions. A game guide "contain hints or complete solutions", but the article that was deleted included few or no such statements.

Arguments to keep. I disagree with Radiant that the arguments to keep consisted only of "ILIKEIT", "bad process", and "it was kept before". Keep arguments included direct or implicit references to following (and I'm paraphrasing): "the minigames are the central focus of Mario Party"; "the information is encyclopedic but the main article is already long"; "the article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content (instructions/hints)"; and "the topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable".

Conclusion. I initially started this lengthy comment not knowing what I would recommend, but have come to a clear conclusion that the decision to delete should be overturned. I find the argument discounting the "keep" arguments to be inaccurate and also rather dismissive, though I note again that I do not believe the close was made in bad faith or that there is evidence to suggest such. -- Black Falcon 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. He shouldn't have participated in the latter Mario Party list AfDs, but he made a good call in closing it, simply because no one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia. No matter how many people vote to keep based on "it's necessary and encyclopedic just because", the fact that they didn't shows that this closure was in good faith. Anyone remember Bonus Stage? 50% delete, 50% keep, but it was deleted because the keepers didn't assert that it was encyclopedia, notable, or necessary. Remember - this is not a vote. It is a discussion, and if the closing administrator feels that you have failed to prove your points, it gets deleted. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

50% keep, 50% delete = No Consensus. Henchman 2000 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD = Not a vote. The Kinslayer 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, while you are correct that the vote isn't everything, if he felt that the arguments provided against all of the delete votes were invalid, he should have said though. From my perspective it appeared as if they were ignored. Maybe they weren't, but if they weren't ignored, I think he should have stated so. McKay 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • No one could answer why it belongs on Wikipedia? How about the list of things I wrote?

1. The minigames are the central focus of Mario Party;
2. The article describes the minigames and provides no game guide content;
3. The topic has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources that are independent and reliable.

• • An interpretation that these were only "ILIKEIT" or "USEFUL" is dismissive and inaccurate. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for further discussion, though I have no opinion on the article itself. It is obvious from the lack of agreement here that there was also no agreement at AfD, where the same arguments were used, and rather than discuss the merits here, it should be sent back for re-argument based on the current version. DGG 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion When closing an AfD, or judging any consensus for that matter, you need to take into account the value of the arguments in relation to policy. I think Radiant did this well. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self. To clarify a bit, I didn't quote people in my closing but listed some of the ideas people argued from. Actual quotes along those lines include "There is no reason to delete these articles" (Bowsy), "Nominator has provided no reason for deletion" (Dacium), "We have no reason to think that this article should be deleted" (McKay) and "Nominator should post links to past AFDs ... nothing has changed - so still keep" (Dacium). WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments include "Keep as this is a useful list" (Burntsauce) and "Mario Party has extended into quite a long series" (Valley2City). >Radiant< 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I should add that I've struck my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (2nd nomination), and that my nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames was intended to be procedural because it was noted that those party game articles should all be treated similarly. >Radiant< 07:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I figured you were paraphrasing. However, I think it's unfair to characterise those users' arguments as consisting of nothing beyond those quotes. See, for instance, these other statements by those users, which are claims with direct relevance to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and/or refutations of the reasons for deletion (material in parentheses is added by me):

1. Bowsy: "Mario Party is about minigames more than anything else." (notability)
2. Dacium: "Information is too big to fit in normal articles for games." (proper content organisation)
3. Burntsauce: "I see nothing that strikes me as "game guide" material here, and we can quickly remove it should it ever creep in." (WP:NOT)

-- Black Falcon 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first is a non sequitur. MP is notable and it consists of minigames; it does not follow that an enumeration thereof is encyclopedic.

  No, the logic isn't perfect. You are correct in saying "If X is notable, it doesn't mean all the Ys in X are notable" but it seems implicit that he's saying that the minigames themselves are notable. Sure, he should probably show why he thinks that, but his opinion is a valid one. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The second is also a non sequitur. If information does not fit in one place, it does not follow that we need a new place to put it. Guidelines like WP:AVTRIV and WP:FICT are relevant here.

  Yes, funny you should mention WP:FICT. I quote in part: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice." On some of the MP lists it was specifically ruled that it was too long and unweildy for the main article. Do you think a better guideline fits? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The third is a proof by assertion. Other people argue that this is game guide material. Indeed, if gamefaqs.com is any judge, I would expect to find exactly this in a MP game guide. Just because a good game guide would contain more information doesn't mean this information isn't game guidish.

  Ahh, now that's a non sequitur. Just because there is a proof by assertion doesn't mean that the content isn't true. On the other hand, you mention that others argued that it was game guide material. I argue that not only were all their comments a proof by assertion logical fallacy, in most cases, those who thought it wasn't game guide content asked what they thought was gameguideish, and their comments never even made it to the Argumentum ad nauseam phase. And in most of those cases, no reply was given. WP:CONSENSUS states that without adding additional thought. I argue that consensus was reached in favor of keep. McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• My point here is that I tend to discount fallacies when closing a discussion. >Radiant< 08:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  the purpose of this Deletion review is to determine whether or not policy was followed. The argument being made here is that policy isn't being followed. IIRC, the purpose of the closing adminstrator isn't to "discount fallacies" made in the discussion, but to gather the feel of the AfD to see where consensus lies. Not (like Radiant himself claims) make additional judgements on the content provided therein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs).

  • The purpose of the closing administrator is to weigh the arguments. Obviously, valid arguments weigh stronger than fallacies. >Radiant< 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    And I'm saying that there aren't any fallacies on the "keep" side. I think you used a judgement call to say what was a fallacy and what wasn't. If someone thought the arguements were fallacies, they should have said so during the discussion. McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - Still a game guide in my opinion. The Kinslayer 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion That article was absolutely useless, and I actually like the Mario Party series, but, that being said, I also know that a list of the minigames is totally unnecessary and I'm still feeling a WP:ILIKEIT vibe from the overturn votes, since no one has, once again, brought up anything that merits the article's existence. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC):Vote is abuse of DRV, for it is not about content. This user has clearly voted in this manner because they also did so on the AfD, and for no other reason. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Contrary to what you may think, the purpose of a deletion review isn't to say "Overturn, notable" or "Endorse deletion, still a game guide" Those are not the issue here. The issue is whether or not the process was followed. Particularly in the outcome -- Did the closing administrator properly follow procedure and determine whether or not consensus existed? McKay 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah sure why not. (Did you really think challenging my view was going make me say 'By gods your right, restore it immediately I say!'?). Looking through the AfD, no-one adequetly (in my view) rebutted the deletion issues, therefore the admin was right to delete. The Kinslayer 15:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you did exactly what I was thinking you should do. I pointed out that your argument wasn't valid for a Deletion Review. I was hoping that you'd go through the AfD, and the result to determine whether or not you think that the process was followed. I believe that the process wasn't followed properly, beacuse the closing admin:
        1. Didn't give an accurate summary of what happened
        2. Claims that he did some original research on the content to determine what consensus really was. McKay 20:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
           • So what, he didn't give an accurate summation of the events because you disagreed with him? He assessed your arguments, which WERE "I like it", "It's useful", and "Mario Party is notable, and the mini-games are important to MP, making them notable by association". None of which are appropriate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

             We specifically denounced that those were what our claims were. His job was not to assess arguments, but to determine whether or not consensus was reached, and I don't think he did that. Consensus was not reached in favor of "delete". McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse closure. I can't really disagree with anything that Radiant's said, here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. While some "Delete"-ers had IDON'TLIKEIT arguments, the "Keep"-ers had none at all outside ILIKEIT. I think it was a pretty clear cut case that the Keeps were out debated by the Deletes. Axem Titanium 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Black Falcon has shown that the "keep"ers had other arguments, can you discount them? McKay 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Excuse me, I was not using WP:ILIKEIT whatsoever! I was using WP:N which it does qualify for. And the deletes were out debated by the keeps anyway. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn which defults to keep. The AfD was allowed to run for the full length of time, yet no consensus was found for deletion inspite of substantial discussion. Thus it must be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 10:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the post above yours should have explained that 50% No keep and 50% Delete DOES NOT equal No Consensus and therefore a keep. As has been stated numerous times, AfD is not a vote, it's a debate. The Kinslayer 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    and what he's saying is that there wasn't consensus for keep. If there was consensus for keep, we wouldn't be having this little discussion would we?

• Comment - Nobody wishing to keep this article has provided any sources which show notability of the mini-games outside the context of Mario Party itself. Can anybody show otherwise? I don't consider coverage in game guides or primary sources to be enough for this, and I don't considering copying and pasting portions of the main article to be enough either. Editorially speaking, it makes no sense to fork articles like this. Overall, people wanting to keep this article did not have strong arguments. One group claimed the nom didn't really give a valid reason for deletion (maybe, but it was quickly followed by a decent reason for deletion, so that doesn't really matter). One group gave various reasons for keeping, most of which were variations "it's good, I like it". Black Falcon attempted to source, but as I pointed out, this just resulted in forking content from the main article. --- RockMFR 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• How did we not have strong arguments, the deletists didn't have strong arguments anyway, they were saying "I don't like this article, I don't want it here, I know, I'll use a lame excuse to try and make it seem like something is wrong with the article". On the other hand, we were saying, "This is a notable subject, it is sourced and you are using reasons that aren't true to try and get the article deleted". Which is better? Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - 50/50 is a clear consensus to delete when the reasoning of the 50% urging us to keep can't produce a reason related to our policies and guidelines for why we should do so. It's not all about the numbers. Chris cheese whine 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, we used WP:N so we were using policies and guidelines. AfD is mainly about numbers and ranting, of which there was way too much to forge a (proper) consensus from. However, the deletists were clearly usein WP:IDONTLIKEIT and policies and guidelines that did not actually apply to the article like WP:ATT. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Done well, and an Admin who has the brass cajones to actually read the arguments and realize the the Keep votes amounted to nothing more then WP:ILIKEIT rather then making this a straw poll gets points. -M^ask 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin who fails to understand how AfD works and makes an opinionated closure and who fails to realise that the entire nomination was a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument most certainly does NOT deserve points. Henchman 2000 08:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nomination may well have been inspired by WPIDONTLIKEIT. However, unlike the WP:ILIKEIT crowd, the nominator was able to provide ACTUAL policy failings to support the nomination. And if you feel that WP:ILIKEIT OR WP:IDONTLIKEIT should be considered above actual Policy related arguments when summing up a deletion debate, then I hope your never an admin. As has been stated numerous times, numerical counts of people supporting or opposing a proposed deletion is NOT the point of the AfD. Even here in the review, the people wishing for the article to be restored haven't been able to muster a better argument then "Admin had no right to delete the article, the people saying 'Keep' was at least equal to people saying 'Delete'.' The Kinslayer 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, Kinslayer. If youare saying WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments shouldn't be considered over policies and guidelines, then you are saying that many delet votes shouldn't have been counted as they were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The keepists used poilicies and guidelines like WP:N, which we are doing at the moment. Also, the admin did have no right to delete the article, as there was too much cloud and mist to form a consensus from. Henchman 2000 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, it was a comment on the logic you seem be displaying at the moment! I think far too many people throw NPA around needlessly just because they don't like the holes that are appearing in their own arguments, so they use it as a smokescreen. As for the too much cloud issue, only you and a very few other people hold that view. The admin at the time felt the issue was clear enough to judge, as do a large majority of the people in this review. Most of the cloud and mist, it has to be said, came from people stating 'Keep' with no reason or very weak reasons (this also happened, although as far as I'm concerned, to a far lesser extent, with some of the people saying 'Delete'.) The Kinslayer 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Closure as delete was within admin discretion, and the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments. WarpstarRider 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Twin City Fan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The company history is very notable. It is probably most regarded legend in the US fan history. Twin City Fan is the parent company of the oldest fan company in US history: Clarage, and the largest private industrial fan company in the US. More interestingly, the Barry family has successfully run the company for 3 generations. The first generation, Ben Barry is considered the founding father of moderm fan industry, who founded Barry Blower, Barry Chicago Blower, PennBarry, and last Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd. 63.252.184.178 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fancruft! Just kidding. Overturn deletion A quick Google News search shows this to be a notable company, including being involved with some court case that made it to the Supreme Court of South Dakota. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That comment made me smile :) Anyway, overturn and relist in light of evidence for potential notability, but relist so a consensus as to whether or not it's sufficient can be reached. The prior AfD didn't have much debate on it either way. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. The article starts: "Twin City Fan Companies, Ltd is a group of industrial fans companies, comprising Twin City Fan & Blower, Aerovent and Clarage. Today, Clarage is the oldest fan company still in operation independently." That last line is a claim of notability entirely ignored by AFD and if Clarage is notable, then why isn't the umbrella organization it falls under? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. The article itself is completely unsourced, and reads like an advert (or at least something from an "official" company history). Being owned by a family is unremarkable; and the claim that Clarage is notable as the oldest "independent" fan company makes no sense, since Clarage was apparently bought out by this company, thus making it non-independent and unremarkable. The Google references are all either company home pages, commercial references or product directories, and one or two local business news stories like "Twin City Fan opened a plant in our city". No significant third-party coverage at all, and nothing to back up claims that this company is the "most regarded legend in the US fan history". --MCB 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Given the lack of an assertion of notability, endorse deletion but without prejudice. Chris cheese whine 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. My review of the Google News hits turns up several mentions of a single legal dispute between the former owners, a fair number of reprints of press releases, some recruiting posts and a surprising number of duplicate hits about their name change. The South Dakota Supreme Court case mentioned above appears to be a routine worker's comp dispute. I'm not finding enough to meet the requirements of WP:CORP. No prejudice against recreation if non-trivial, independent sources can be found. Rossami (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD was ill-attended and soft on substance, but so is this nomination to overturn. No problem with a better article if better sources can be provided. ~ trialsanderrors 03:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LaPret (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AFD)

Person is notable. I provided creditable press releases, magazine articles and websites and ASCAP records. Several Admins with hate for the group Profound Intent in which the Rapper-Songwriter is a member continues to vandalize the article and submit it for speedy deletion. The performer has recorded with Yung Joc, written for Tatyana Ali and has participate in a nationwide release in iTunes called Play the Field. His name is found in not just recent searches but content dating back two to three years ago. He is also well linked to singer Teairra Mari.

I even tried to start the article over and improve it and they deleted it while I was in the process to ensure that it would be approved. I've seen articles on Wikipedia with no references at all, I still don't understand that.

He is also signed to an indie label South Capitol Recordings which is parented by Block Entertainment. Once I made the label a link using [[ ]] those admins then went to the label page and added a deletion tag, however the article not started by me, had been there for sometime until I listed it has his label. I'm shocked the ASCAP article has not been put up for deletion. He and his group was briefly mentored by Kelly Price, I even supplied a picture.FranklinRose 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Profound Intent and LaPret have been through multiple valid AfDs - [16][17][18] - and the deletion logs for the pages in question - [19][20][21][22] - show a total of 15 deletions. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Wikipedia articles are created on notable topics, not the other way around. Profound Intend has no releases other than a single. LaPret, as a solo artist, has no releases at all. If a group is notable, it will release. If it hasn't managed to release yet, it is not notable in any respect. I deleted a number of attempts to continually repost this content. I've previously advised that this set of articles should be created after the subject becomes notable, not before. Nobody hates Profound Intent. What's to hate? Nobody knows about them. I hate them because I deleted the article on them? We work on consensus here, and the consensus is that this group and LaPret are not yet notable. Stop worrying about whether there's an article on LaPret and go make a release. If it becomes popular, someone will write an article on the subject. I am very disappointed over the rampant attempts to repost this content despite consensus here, most recently today resulting in a block of FranklinRose. How many times do we have to AfD, speedy delete, and DRV this person/group? --Durin
• Endorse deletion, exactly what Durin said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, evidence was provided of minor notability, but not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. There's little more to say. Xtifr _tälk 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, no reason given to overturn it but "I disagree with the consensus". If you have new information, I'd be happy to see it. -Amarkov moo! 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party Advance minigames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Does not fail WP:ATT like the closing admin said, also, it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists. Henchman 2000 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Closers note I see no other way to close that AfD than the way I did. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, fails WP:NOT like the closing admin said. You are quite right that it's silly to not delete the others as well, so I've put them on AFD. >Radiant< 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was valid, after you sort out all the comments it's clear that the consensus was to delete. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant endorse I don't agree with the decision to delete, but I can't see any other way the debate could have been closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The debate could've been closed as No consensus, seeing as that is what everyone expected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henchman 2000 (talk • contribs) 18:07, March 28, 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, closer was quite right. The article shows three primary (read: unreliable) sources, two of which require interpretation. They are not good enough, so the nom is wrong, and the article did fail WP:ATT. With regards to the comment about similar things not being deleted (yet): WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:FISHING cover that. Thanks to Radiant for nominating them. Picaroon 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Primary sources aren't neccesarily unreliable. If they're used to backup non-controversial information and are not needed to determine notability they can be quite reliable. If celebrity X says their birthday is March 2 while all "reliable" sources say March 1, it would be silly to not believe the primary source. (Just a comment on the reasoning, I am not commenting on the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I do agree with the decision to delete, but that doesn't matter either because the decision was clearly based on policy. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Despite the merits of the article or lack thereof, the discussion was closed appropriately. However, this should in no way constitute a precedent for other similar articles. If such a precedent was desired, the articles should have been nominated together. If any editor wishes to recreate the article in part or in whole while also addressing the issues raised in the AFD, s(he) may request userfication from the closing admin. -- Black Falcon 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overturn, depending on whether we overturn the other article here on Deletion Review. It would see reasonable to discuss them together. DGG 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• If there is a reason to discuss this further a new discussion can be made. Overturning a closure is done when there was a procedural problem with the closure itself, from WP:DRV "This page is about process, not about content". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - "it is silly just to delete this article, and keep the other Mario Party minigame lists." is not a very compelling argument. WP:NOT a game guide and WP:OR are. The Kinslayer 13:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the DRVer's reason to undelete is completely incoherent and does not cite any form of applicable policy. "The closing admin is silly" does not constitute an undelete reason. The clear consensus was that only the Delete people had opinions based in policy. Axem Titanium 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Compelling arguments, but I'm still a little unclear. Could you please elaborate for the sake of those of us who find the debate a little less self-evident? The Kinslayer 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. In my book, a failure of WP:V or WP:OR (and therefore a failure of WP:ATT) creates a default-to-delete scenario - i.e. the "keep" camp needs to provide a compelling reason for doing so. The only thing that came close to a reasoned argument was citing precedent, which is something we don't do. Nomination seems reasonable, but lacking evidence to support it. Chris cheese whine 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a failure to the above if it didn't cite any sources relating to the minigames, but it does. Henchman 2000 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki vandalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted due to unverifiablity. I'd like to try and develop an article in userspace and then move it to mainspace. See User:Miltopia/Wiki vandalism - if an admin is willing to move it there, that would be wonderful. small note: In the event it's determined the old history shouldn't be uncovered, please do not delete my subpage, since it won't be posting of recreated content. Milto LOL pia 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's probably a better idea to come back when your article is written, since your subpage has nothing in it. Wait, never mind, I misread your request. I could userfy the page history, but I'm honestly not sure you want it, since it was quite obviously a vandal magnet. Try starting something from scratch first. --Coredesat 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• It is highly unlikely that a valid article on this can be developed which is not both self-referential and obvious from the combination of "wiki" plus "vandalism". I suppose if Miltopia wants to waste time that is not our problem, but the deletion consensus was as much in respect of the subject as of the article. Guy (Help!) 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore to userspace, I think this could get some good sources. Abeg92contribs 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion for now, but if you can come back with some reliable sources on the topic, might be worth reconsideration. But find some reliable sources first, please! Otherwise, there's really nothing to talk about. Xtifr _tälk 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse without prejudice to a good article on the topic. Chris cheese whine 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Overturn: Article about the webcomic, it was speedily deleted (A7) 5 minutes after Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists, an anthology that published it by the same admin. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, neutral on a list. The book as a reference certainly gives enough information to constitute notability at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Could somebody just tell me what the claim to notability is supposed to be? Only, that looks a lot like a valid A7 speedy to me. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say that the speedy of this article inconjunction with Attitude 3 seems to me that it was just done without much thought - if an article is important enough to be featured in a book about online cartoonists, its importance is not in question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know, I'm still trying to work out the supposed claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article consists of two sentences - what it is and that part of it happened to get published in Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists. It's a textbook A7; just put a redirect to that article in its place. --Coredesat 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How on earth does a redirect make sense here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's part of the larger compilation. There's no information about this particular comic, and the previous article had pretty much nothing to build upon. It's a simple solution. --Coredesat 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist. I cannot view the text of the article, so will not comment on its content. My suggestion to overturn and relist at AFD is mostly for the sake of courtesy. I am aware that a speedy deletion that is contested need not be overturned, but when editors other than the article's creator also request undeletion, I feel it's a good sign that more discussion (and an opportunity to develop the article) is warranted. -- Black Falcon 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion. The entire text of the page was "Fighting Words is a political webcomic by Ben Smith. Material from the strip is printed as part of Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" plus an almost empty infobox and some minor wikification. There is no reasonable assertion of notability in that text and the page has been unchanged since May 2006, leading me to conclude that no expansion is likely. Rossami (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion, redirect it to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists. --Dragonfiend 00:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the deletion/relist issue, but I'm opposed to a redirect. The link between the Attitude vol. 3 anthology and Fighting Words isn't strong enough that a redirect would be representative.Epameinondas 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You may be right -- it just seemed that since the information in the deleted Fighting Words article ("Fighting Words is a webcomic by Ben Smith that was in Attitude 3") is already in the Attitude article, that a redirect would work. --Dragonfiend 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn - no valid reason offered for deletion. Reasons offered were "not encyclopedic" which is pretty meaningless in an AFD debate; WP:BLP concerns, which are invalid because the article was sourced and it's very unlikely that someone is going to sue for being called heterosexual; "unmaintainable" and "too broad" which since the list only had a handful of entries is ludicrous on its face and "once gay, always gay" which is rank POV pushing. The !vote count was 11-7 which is hardly a clear-cut majority, especially in light of the poor reasons offered for several delete !votes (which should lead to those opinions being discounted) and the fact that one of the delete !votes actually supported the notion of having List of ex-gay people which is for all intents and purposes the same list. Otto4711 14:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Instead of requesting that the history be restored, I thought I would state the following: The list included "people who at one point identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual but no longer do" and "people wrongly believed to have renounced LGB identity."[23] Also, there were three mentions of encyclopedic in the AfD, none of which linked to WP:NOT. For this deletion review, please provide links to policy. There might be room for an article on "Notable people whose sexual identification changed overtime prior to their death." -- Jreferee 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please point me to the official and exhaustive list of Valid Reasons that you've been perusing. Failing that, endorse deletion for the reasons given in the deletion debate. >Radiant< 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If this was directed at me, I never said that there was an exhaustive or official list of valid reasons. I said that the reasons offered in this nomination were not valid for this AFD. Otto4711 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• endorse A number of reasons were given for deletion in the Afd, all of them valid. Anmong other, I questioned the assumption that a gay person would not object to being called heterosexual is probably false; there is further the problem that listing here implies the person was once gay. Therefore, BLP concerns make a list like this unmaintainable. The close was reasonable.DGG 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• With all due respect, it seems from the above comment that you do not understand the content of the list. The list was for people who stated that they were once homosexual and no longer are. There are people, for example, John Paulk and Richard Cohen, who made careers out of stating that they were once gay and no longer are. How can someone who states in a reliable source that they were once gay and now no longer are possibly be subject to BLP concerns? How can someone who writes books extolling their own transformation from gay to straight possibly raise concerns that it might be "implied" that they used to be gay when they write and sell books in which they state flat out that they used to be gay?! It's a ridiculous non-concern. BLP does not demand that biographies of living people be deleted in their entirety if there is unsourced or poorly sourced material. It demands that the unsourced or poorly sourced material be removed. Since the items on the list were properly sourced BLP cannot properly be used as an excuse for deleting the items or the list that the items make up. Also, at no point in the AFD was the notion that a gay person might get upset at being called heterosexual raised so why that's coming up here is a mystery. Otto4711 21:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. Most of the delete !votes used arguments that were subsequently rebutted, or which could trivially be solved without deletion, or which are somewhat week (e.g. "Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay" or "This doesn't provide useful imformation" (AKA WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or "Delete per BLP" -- BLP would only require the article to be sourced, which a number of contributors suggested it was). The keepers were outnumbered, but only by a small amount. I don't see consensus, no. JulesH 18:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Kind of a tough one. Nom makes a good point that many of the delete !votes were weak but I believe the points were still valid. Also concede that the consensus was weak, so while I will endorse the deletion, I would also not mind seeing it relisted to generate more consensus one way or another, but not flat-out overturning. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't mind seeing it relisted then maybe you should vote relist instead? Otto4711 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because I still endorse the deletion. As I stated I view it to be something of a borderline case, where my support is behind the closing admin but I would not oppose relisting. Consider it a "weak ensorse" if you must. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The deletion of a list of this nature which is not footnoted to reliable sources on every single name, which this wasn't, should be automatically endorsed per WP:BLP. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The only problem with this statement is that every single name on the list was sourced, either in the article itself or in the linked page to the subject's own article. Otto4711 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Linked in the article' is a smokescreen for endemic poor sourcing and not good enough for lists of this nature. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fine, so undelete the article and I'll move the sources from the individual articles to the list. Problem solved. Otto4711 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Poor debate, for sure, but the fundamental fact is that this was a list of people asserting a sexuality for which no reliable sources can be found any more. Heavy on "said to be", light on sources. And what, precisely, is supposed to be encyclopaedic about lists of people who might once have gone gay but don't any more? I don't see it myself. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, read Reparative therapy to get some idea of the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Second, the sourcing for people's former sexuality does not vanish with the change of sexuality. Source for John Paulk in which he identifies himself as a "former homosexual," which he also states in the book that he wrote (which as far as I know still exists and did not vanish in a poof of fairy dust). Source for Richard Cohen, in which he is identified as having transitioned from homosexuality to heterosexuality, which he has also written about in his as-yet-not-turned-to-fairy-dust book. Source for Michael Johnston in which he is reported to have given a speech about his "journey...out of homosexuality." The sourcing is there and the encyclopedic nature of the topic is there. Otto4711 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no suggestion as far as I can see that any of these individuals have undergone "reparative therapy". Such a claim would certainly require robust sourcing. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Are you deliberately being obtuse? This was not "List of people who had reparative therapy" (although many on the list did in fact have it). This was a list of people who used to self-identify as gay and no longer do. The reparative therapy link was offered to show that the notion of gay people turning straight is an encyclopedic topic. "Ex-gay" redirects to that article. Otto4711 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Isn't this a subpage? I thought they were explicitly not allowed. JuJube 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• If it is, undelete it and move it from being a sub-page. Otto4711 23:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yikes! There is obviously no consensus to delete in that debate - thus an explained delete closure just begs to be overturned. Given the lack of consensus, is there an overriding policy reason to delete anyway? Now, I'm torn - this is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. But then, if it is properly sourced, is it any more of a problem than any list of people by sexuality? If we get the wrong people on this, then we'll have problems, but same goes for the 'lists of gay people' which I suspect we have. POV issues rise here - but looking at it, it seems to me that the deletion argument is also guilty of that. Ok, my vote weak overturn as 1) no consensus to delete b) no overriding reason to delete without such a consensus. But I wont cry if this says dead. I hate lists - and especially lists by sexuality (or ex-sexuality).--Doc^g 09:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Otto. Deletion reasons included:

1. "not encyclopedic" (vague and unexplained)
2. "just a way to beg for trouble" (so is any biographical information!)
3. "sub-page... in the mainspace" (moving is a solution here)
4. "WP:ATT" (the article and it was rather well-sourced)
5. "WP:NPOV" (huh??)
6. "large/unmaintainable list" (the list was being regularly maintained and being large is hardly a reason to delete)
7. "Once gay, always gay" (here's one response that comes to mind: <uncivil remark not written> (no offense); also see WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAP)
8. "doesn't provide useful imformation" (no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT)
9. "susceptible to BLP" (so is all biographical content!)

I should note that while going over the AFD page for March 21, I skipped over this discussion because it appeared a clear case of "keep" to me. -- Black Falcon 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as closer, I think I made an error here (after looking at the debate again, and noting the problems here). Not sure if I should simply undelete this, or not...? Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think you can take unilateral action since its now at deletion review. But I'm still on the fence on this one. Per WP:LIST, lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Do you think it would be reasonable to read the AfD as saying that the consensus thought it is unlikely that an unambiguous statements of membership criteria could be developed to overcome WP:BLP concerns? -- Jreferee 00:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I can't say as I find it at all reasonable to put words in the mouths of the people who !voted in the AFD. Had they wanted to raise the issue at AFD, they could have. To answer the specific concern, however, off the top of my head the membership criteria would be something along the lines of "for people who once self-identified as LGBT but later began self-identifying as heterosexual." The wording can be tweaked but it seems relatively unambiguous to me. Otto4711 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WikyBlog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article seems to have been deleted because WikyBlog's notability was questioned.

1. User User:Kesh confused it as an "innovative use of Mediawiki" and not an independently developed project.
2. User:Retiono_Virginian "doubt[ed] it exsist[ed]" but did not refer to the links on the article to WikyBlog.com and the sourceforge project page
3. I find it somewhat ironic that DidiWiki used a reference to WikyBlog to defend it's own deletion.

   Note as well that, using DidiWiki's approach, the number of hits when searching google for "WikyBlog" is now around 88,000 in comparison to:

   • DidiWiki (30,000),
   • WiClear (46,500)
   • WikkiTikkiTavi (34,000)

   which all have articles on Wikepedia and have been deemed notable.

4. Moreover, a google search for "powered by wikyblog" returns over 27,000 results.

It is for these reasons of interpretation, popularity, and measurable user base that I respectfully request the undeletion of the WikyBlog article. Oyejorge 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, unanimous AFD. Google hits alone are simply a rule of thumb and are not part of the notability guidelines. --Coredesat 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Unanimous AFDs are usually only overturned/relisted with the presentation of multiple reliable independent sources. This doesn't seem to have that. Wickethewok 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Lack of sources. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion valid unanimous AfD (and it was even relisted twice, and still got no support despite being open for 3 weeks!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion AfD valid; noone of the above make it notable; also, I only get 27 google results (not that that's important...) JulesH 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The close by Punkmorten was certainly valid. As noted by Wickethewok, undeletion in this case should really be accompanied by the presentation of multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject non-trivially. -- Black Falcon 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was CSD'd under nn-bio after an afd. That was in September 2005. Since then, Star has released an EP, appeared with AFI and Godhead, made #1 on the iTunes dance chart [24], and been covered by the LA Weekly [25], Buzznet [26], and MusicEdge [27]. Overturn Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Most recent deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23
• Last full deletion review (links to all prior): Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22

GRBerry 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, again. Still no reliable sources which are really about him. -Amarkov moo! 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion yet again; however, you can write a new article in user space that cites reliable sources (the Buzznet article hardly qualifies as a reliable source, it's an ad for the EP) and come back here with it - it could then be restored and/or given a full AFD discussion. However, do not unsalt the article until that condition is met. I'm being a little harsher here because that possibility has been brought up a few times, and no one has attempted it. --Coredesat 01:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • LA Weekly is a reliable source. But now I expect to hear some excuse as to why it's not good enough. I see a lot of excuses popping up as to why this topic must be so vehemently excluded. None of them really justify WP:PP to me. Semi-protect I could see. WP:PP is a bit extraordinary for someone who is much closer to notable than, say, my boss or my kid brother or my high school principal. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Repeating general plea for Wikipedia to bring their sourcing in line with the 21st century so obviously notable individuals can be covered properly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeating general comment that being in line with the 21st century does not make unreliable sources reliable. -Amarkov moo! 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's part of the problem, we're still considering otherwise reliable sources unreliable. But I've led us too far OT already. Just generally frustrated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse yet again. Viral marketing aside, no reliable non-trivial sources about this person. As with Dr Steel, I think we are being targeted by fans to try to promote a "famous for what?" subject into notability. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Yes, LA Weekly gives him a passing mention and Buzznet is clearly not reliable. But that still leaves iTunes and MusicEdge as reliable enough to base an article off. A number one at iTunes is clearly notable and there's sources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion deletion endorsed just a few days ago (see DRV March 24th). Suggest future DRV attempts be speedy-closed: a new DRV every 4 days is disruptive and unreasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No one's noting the DRVs on the article talk page. (They can't, of course, because of the curious use of PP.) I might have known what the issues were. Clearly there are issues so bad that they require extreme lengths to prevent the creation of the article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It may be worth placing a note on the talk page - I'll do it once I gather links to all the DRV discussions. The frequency this appears on DRV is a reason why deletion is usually endorsed. --Coredesat 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per [28] this LA Weekly article (and photo). I realize that he's still borderline in terms of media mentions, but given the buzz (evidenced by over a million Google hits), I think the notability is close enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a passing mention, actually, despite the photo. --Coredesat 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless, if a notable magazine in a major city is making "passing" mentions by name and printing photos of someone, I would argue that they must have some notability. The Weekly determined he was notable enough to showcase in the photo. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I found another mention in Slate.com [29]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh please. Both of those are "also-ran" namechecks and nothing more. His viral marketing campaign really is not getting result, perhaps he should hire a new publicist. Or get his kit off on YouTube, that seems to work. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • His viral marketing campaign did succeed in getting him a #1 spot on iTunes downloads, for what that's worth. Honestly, I don't care whether or not he has an article. I thought the Lonelygirl15 thing was incredibly stupid, but eventually it got to the point where I couldn't deny it's notability. I think JS is getting close to that point, if not already there. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Unfortunately, we don't include things because they are "getting close" to being notable. They have to be notable and the information attributable now, not later. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Without sources that are actually about the subject and aren't just passing mentions, there isn't much of an argument. --Coredesat 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Since when is reaching number 1 in an iTunes chart not notable? And how are MusicEdge and iTunes not reliable sources to attribute to? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse nothing here--Doc^g 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - passing mentions are still trivial no matter who's doing the mentioning. Chris cheese whine 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and redeletions. As several have already said, passing mentions are not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. As to the claim that he hit "#1 on the iTunes dance chart", everyone can be number one if you parse your selection criteria narrowly enough. iTunes alone lists 23 different chart types, each with 22 charts (by country). That alone does not convince me that the subject yet meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Rossami (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:MUSIC's relevant criteria is: "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart." That is not well defined... that is to say, what chart(s) qualify as "national music charts", though it does say "any national music chart". So... unless you are saying that the US iTunes dance chart is not "any national music chart", it would seem to fit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Toyota Axina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted as a hoax or nonsense piece. It isn't. I work in the motor industry and can confirm this car does exist. It's not in production yet. It's notable, ALL RIGHT!! Okay, can we discuss this now, pleeeease!!! Flakysnow-494 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Based on this, obvious hoax. Compare that to Toyota Tercel. - Denny 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, blatantly obvious. --Coredesat 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Valid closure and no new sources provided to review here. -- Satori Son 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fred the Monkey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

So... This is a bit confusing, but please bear with me. Determining if Flash cartoons and artists are notable is quite difficult: web rankings can often be misleading, and the popularity of certain things is hard to ascertain. Fred the Monkey, I think, fits into the category of "notable, but just barely". The cartoons are produced by the animation of a single artist, and it takes a lot of time to make a single episode. Because of this, updates are very, very rare. The site has been up for roughly 4 years, and there's only been 20+ cartoons. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Fred, but the last time I checked for a new cartoon was about three months ago. And since web rankings are obviously based on hits, we can guess that FTM will be lower than, say, Newgrounds. This isn't because less people know about it; rather, it is because FTM simply has less hits due to it being a single artist's work, as opposed to several. That does not, however, make it any less notable. Google search results would back this up. Several cartoons have been featured on Newgrounds, the Cubetoons article still exists (albeit due to being featured on IGN), and the Fred the Monkey forums are some of the most active I've been on. Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominee. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V requires independent reliable sources, of which there are exactly zero. And neither forum activity nor google hits make something notable anyway. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - WP:WEB not fulfilled, neither is WP:V, so it was deleted for appropriate reasons despite SPAs. Wickethewok 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the AfD debate. Lack of sources not remedied. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. We do not follow a principle of "notable unless proved otherwise"; if something cannot be proved notable, it is not. Tizio 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry all, I was in a huge rush when I typed this and forgot to check the guidelines. I'll withdraw this nomination for now and open a new one once I can find proper sources and sites. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Robin Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The stub did indicate why the subject was notable. The article was deleted within 5 minutes of creation; no one gave me a chance to improve the article Abridged 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More info: A message was left on my talk page that the article was tagged at 17:16. The article was deleted at 17:17. Also note that the deleting admin could not have given this much careful consideration since he deleted 5 other articles the same minute by his log of user contributions, and clearly did not take the time to confirm that the criteria for speedy deletion had been met before deleting. Abridged 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - unless an article is pure vandalism, it shouldn't be deleted so quickly when active improvement is still going on. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't have any problem with the rapid response, but "Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. // Bibliography // Homeopathic Medical Repertory, 1993 (1st edition), 2005 (3rd edition), [1][2]" is a clear and unambiguous assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn If that was the entire content, more will obviously be needed to fully establish notability, so I would have added a prod tag, not a speedy, to give it a chance. Dont bite the newbies. DGG 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, that was just the claim to notability. The article was a biostub: Robin Murphy (born, 1950, Grand Rapids, Michigan) is a Naturopath and homeopath. Dr. Murphy became interested in homeopathy as an undergraduate. He studied homeopathy at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) where he earned an ND in 1980, and directed the homeopathy program there from 1980-1984. He has also taught at Bastyr University. He directs the Hahnemann Academy of North America. Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. Three books, two refs, one link to a bio. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Speedy not justified. --Lee Hunter 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Um. Not an A7, but awfully, awfully spammy. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why you think that? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • What is a "A7"? Here's a link to the way the page looked when it was deleted [30]. I don't see how "spammy" applies, and I consider that a violation of WP:BITE. Abridged 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • "A7" is one of the criteria for speedy deletion: WP:CSD#A7. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This article made a clear assertion of notability, so it's not a speedy candidate. If the notability is in doubt, it should be discussed on AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment; I think a speedy close here would be justified as everyone agrees. DGG 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, as the deleted article did enough to make it not a CSD A7. I would be inclined to argue for its deletion on a AfD (as "fully spammy," maybe) but that would be the place for it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy, but without prejudice against listing at WP:AFD. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I placed the speedy on it because I didn't feel notability was clearly asserted, although it is a close call. Also, the article was apparently deleted due to a prod a week earlier as well. I have no problem with the article remaining if the concerns about notability are addressed. Hatch68 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What needs to be asserted is "importance", not "notability": Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria --NE2 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have to endorse the speedy-deletion based on the evidence available at the time. However, the speedy-deletion has been contested in good faith so an undeletion and listing to AFD is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alpamysh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I believe the page was deleted too soon, despite having undergone major improvements and citing all its sources, including the main source on which it was based. The page should have remained for at least another day to allow for it further improvement, or at least be moved to my personal Talk page to improve it there. Currently, I have no backup of it, and simply can't re-write it as there were several sources and quotes that I found before and can't find them all again. It is better to restore the page, and I will re-write it even more. Note that the original request for deletion came only after the first, preliminary version of the page, whilst by the time the article got deleted, it was in its 2.0 version. To make the story short, if the page gets restored, I will quickly make it conform fully to all Wiki standards, it won't be very hard, since the article had a good collection of quotes and research in it, and will need only minor shortening and adjustment. --Wisconsin96 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This was deleted as a copyvio, which seems to be partially true. Do you want me to email you a copy of the text? If you rewrite it, make sure you don't lift passages from other sources without attribution. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Golden State Ambulance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Just wondering what happened to this article. I can't find it on the list of deleted articles and it's not even showing up under my account at all. I can't find any record of it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Javastein (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

• Deleted as a company not showing significance by User:Rspeer according to the logs. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: suggest this be closed, as Javastein didn't present any arguments for undeletion—merely asked what happened to the article. But also suggest that this not be considered to prejudice a possible relisting at Deletion Review with reasons, if anyone wants to try, and has reasons to offer us. Xtifr _tälk 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hadouken! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article has been deleted a number of times which really is rather stupid. Its also been protected from being recreated. Read the articles talk page to see how badly this deletion needs overturned. It was deleted orginally for unnotability but it cant be categorised under this, not anymore. They've been interviewed on XFM and performed live, as well as getting play on Radio 1, working with Bloc Party and Klaxons, currently on a headline tour, their debut single sold out on PRE-ORDERS they now have a new member and are widely considered the hottest new band in the whole of the UK by NME. Read the talk page, the people have spoken and they want this article. Now.--Shookvitals 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Shookvitals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Overturn and list. This band certainly meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Where are the reliable sources? MySpace, YouTube, their own web site and the web site of their record company do not qualify. They have no entry at allmusic.com. Corvus cornix 19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a number of scans from NME, Articles from various websites as well if that counts?--Shookvitals 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Got more sources? List them. Otherwise, I'm going to have to say Endorse. Show the article can pass WP:BAND, that's all you need to do. Scans aren't necessary, an article cite should be fine. --UsaSatsui 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Previously endorsed in January with the same arguments/purported sources. Unless new sources are offered this will be speedily closed. "Stupid" is no reason to reconsider this. ~ trialsanderrors 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Its proponents say Hadouken is the inventor of a genre or something. Ridiculous. How many times do we have to go through this? JuJube 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So delete that. The band can still be notable without that claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse valid deletion, "getting popular" is not a reason to change that. Bring sources. Reliable ones, independent of the band. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've asked NME for verification of the claimed magazine scans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have more sources, a particularly interesting ones from Gigwise which prove a number of things
  1. They were one of the headlining bands on a Myspace new music tour[31]
  2. They released a single[32]
  3. Fantastic one here showing the effect theyre having at the minute[33]
  4. 4th on the NME chart show ahead of the new My Chemical Romance video[34]

  I'll willing supply more if needed--Shookvitals 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Does the NME chart count as a "national music chart"? If it does, they pass WP:BAND under criteria #1. --UsaSatsui 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "Get cracking, the more times you vote, the more influence you'll have..." does not instill confidence. Looks like poll stuffing to me. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and the 25-30 selections you can choose from aren't helping either. Nevermind, that chart is junk. --UsaSatsui 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per guy, and the nominator's comment "stupid" makes it pretty tough to assume good faith here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Wait let me get this straight, the page is not being unprotected because I said that it was 'stupid' that it was? I'm sorry but since when has 'stupid' been such an offensive word. I could have said something a lot more offensive but I didn't. Im trying to be as useful as I can here but I just feel that everyone is always against the 'new guy'. Isnt their a rule on wikipedia 'Don't be a dick' or something. Im pretty sure most of you would fail it.--Shookvitals 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I can't say that I see any serious assertion of notability in the deleted versions of the page so I can't disagree with the various deleting editors. But the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith so overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD where definite evidence will be needed to show that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This article needs to be brought back, but renamed. A list of fiction that builds the fourth wall would be useless, as it would include pretty much all fiction. But a list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall - by first looking like breaking it but then not breaking it after all - is much more interesting. The AfD debate failed to consider this view. This should be undeleted and renamed to List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall or List of fiction that restores the fourth wall. JIP | Talk 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - perhaps the reason that no one considered the viewpoint was because no one (including this DRV nominator) offered it. The article was correctly deleted, but there is no bar to the nominator or anyone else creating List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall. Otto4711 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion. I was thinking of the wrong article. The list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall was in the main article, but removed without explanation. I have added it back. JIP | Talk 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The original review was closed for what the closing admin believed to be a necessary precaution based on possible office issues. The office has since spoken, and said they won't have a statement on it, so this is just to re-open it. Please see the original review for comments and concerns. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural note: Opinions in the aborted original discussion will be taken as still valid at closing time if the editor offering such opinions has not withdrawn or updated them. Please do not feel obligated to repeat them here. GRBerry 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and *not* for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopaedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you feel parts of the article are problematic, delete those parts. The article does use reliable sources for a large part of the content; non-contentious claims are sourced from Bauer's own web site (as is permitted by policy) and contentious claims are sourced from Writer Beware and the official Writer Beware blog (which is a reliable source, IMO). Some claims are sourced with primary sources, which is far from ideal, but does provide us with means of verification that the statements are true. I guess, however, that it is these parts of the article you objected to, so I'd suggest deleting those parts, rather than the entire article. JulesH 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore Based on what was there before (multiple, non-trivial sources establishing notability). If there are POV/neutrality concerns that is now an editing matter. Also the current history link isn't working, an admin must fix that. We cannot see now what was there before. Please restore ASAP. - Denny 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update Seeing the history, restore/undo the deletion. Someone can AfD after if they feel like it, once it's restored. - Denny 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. The BLP policy doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - even by the most stringent policy interpretations there is no basis for deletion. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• (reaffirm) Restore - I agree with Crotalus horridus. This sets a bad precedent. St jb
• keep deleted. The Barbara Bauer article was one of several articles created on Wikipedia in May 2006 by User:JulesH for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Wikipedia, even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Wikipedia editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the Talk:Barbara Bauer and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Wikipedia, using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The original attempt to delete the Barbara Bauer article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Wikipedia to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Wikipedia editors to use Wikipedia as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Wikipedia article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Wikipedia is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be enough coverage of this issue for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as OFFICE stated on the mail list they are not taking a position, can an admin please restore the history of the last couple versions at least so people can judge/see what was there fairly? - Denny 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- It is not required that Wikipedia be able to verify the web site (an official publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an influential and well-reputed professional association); it is only necessary that we can verify that they published the information that is attributed to them in the text. This is true. I see no text in the AfD debate that suggests the result was "keep pending removal of [some] sources." The claims in the article are well-sourced to reliable sources. The only even remotely dubious source (used for "Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.") is (a) a very weakly-phrased claim, (b) is undisputably a reliable WP:A#Primary_and_secondary_sources primary source for the claim being made. Besides, if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article. JulesH 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

reply to JulesH. The cited webpage says, "Below, in alphabetical order, is a list of the currently active literary agencies about which Writer Beware has received the largest number of complaints over the years, or which, based on documentation we've collected, we consider to pose the most significant hazard for writers." That website does not show us the "complaints" and "documentation" that support their claims. The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to make sure that Wikipedia does not find itself in the position of repeating claims that are not reliably sourced. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources says: "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I take this to mean that we need to cite a reliable third-party source that verifies the undocumented claims made by the "Writer Beware" website. What is a reliable third-party source for a Wikipedia biography? "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." About the original article deletion discussion, the article was saved from speedy deletion by an administrator who called for the article to be cleaned up; relevant comments from the discussion: "Weak keep if attacks are removed", "article is in desperate need of cleanup", "Strong Delete Wikipedia is not Google", "This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks". "if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article" <-- but in this case, the article was created for one purpose, to have Wikipedia repeat an unverifiable claim by website; this is not why Wikipedia has biographical encyclopedia articles. --JWSchmidt 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply - You're misinterpreting the policy. Wikipedia does not require its sources to provide sources for their information; that would be insane. SFWA Writer Beware is a reliable third-party source. Because Writer Beware is such a source, the information is clearly not unverifiable. The purpose of Wikipedia having biographical articles is to inform people who are researching a particular person about who that person is, and what they have done. I'm well aware of this, and I dispute the suggestion that the reason I created this article was merely to have Wikipedia repeat the information: I found well sourced information that seemed to me to be notable and interesting, and I created articles on its subjects. It was later decided that of those articles, only this one should remain. JulesH 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For a Wikipedia biography page, a reliable third party source for negative information about the subject might be a reputable newspaper that has trained investigative reporters, editors and fact checkers. Such a source might publish an investigative report in which they examine court documents and provide the public with a carefully documented report of how many claims for damages have been awarded to customers of a business. Such a source might publish the names of people who have gone to court with claims against a company and print direct quotes from them that reveal the problems they had in trying to do business with the company. Such a source would also have a section in their article where they ask the company for their perspective on the customer complaints against the company. The Writer Beware webpage does not come close to meeting these standards for being a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography article. Wikipedia does not exist as a means to amplify unverifiable negative claims about people that are made by websites. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikipedia's policy is that only newspapers can provide reliable sources for biographies. Writer Beware is a publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, one of the most important professional associations that exists for genre fiction writers. It is an important and credible source by any standards I've ever seen discussed even remotely in connection with a wikipedia policy. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - looking at the Google cache, I honestly don't see how this person meets WP:BIO standards. The sources are either self-referential, have no actual information, or are blogs, which to me doesn't stand up very well. If someone can come forward with good, reliable sources, then perhaps it's worthy, but right now? I don't see it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(I note that I can't see any sources that may have been added after the Google cache was created, just for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - Articles which turn into Interwebs smearfests about living people should be deprecated, demolished and buried. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for criticism or praise - it is a compendium of what has already been published in reliable sources. The article in question consisted almost entirely of what has been (negatively) said about the person on blogs and message boards. WP:BLP specifically prohibits the use of these sites as sources for biographies. "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." Surely there is something which has been published in a reliable source which discusses the allegations for/against this person in a neutral manner, if this truly is not a tempest in a teapot, right? FCYTravis 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion - see rationale at the top.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Your rational is already logged. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Restore. (1) No OFFICE action -- if and when there is, it can be dealt with then; (2) Previous AfD closed as "keep"; (3) subject satisfies WP:BIO as a subject, due to controversy covered in multiple sources; and finally, (4) article does not violate WP:BLP for two reasons I analyze below:

1. The main source of her notoriety is her filing of a lawsuit, the verifiability of which is incontrovertable by reference to public records sources.
2. The collateral sources which form the basis of the public controversy in which she is embroiled meet WP:RS. The SFWA site is not a personal home page, blog, fan site, rumor site, etc; it is the official site of a respected and established professional organization, the equivalent in its field to (for example) the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association. The author of the SFWA piece, A. C. Crispin, is an officer of the organization, and a well-known author in her own right. As for Making Light, while it is a blog, it clearly fits the exception in WP:RS to the general prohibition on self-published sources, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Teresa Nielsen Hayden unquestionably meets those qualifications.

This article is a good example of how we can show that Wikipedia is capable of neutral, professional coverage of controversial matters, even matters in which it is a party. Restore. --MCB 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, it says "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." The Writer Beware blog is not a self-published blog; it is published on behalf of a reputable organization. Making Light may be inappropriate as a source here, and I would suggest the removal of that and the information sourced to it following restoration of the article. It is irrelevant now, anyway, as news of the lawsuit against Wikipedia, Nielsen Hayden, Jenna Glatzer, "Miss Snark" et al is sure to make some non-blog source. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment History restored behind protection. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and keep article provided that better sourcing is added. Reliability of the original sourcing was not at all clear. ~This is an instance of where we do have to be careful of BLP. The withdrawal of the Office action was not a license to ignore BLP, but rather a statement that they relied upon us to evaluate with it properly in the usual way. DGG 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment There was no OFFICE action. I remarked on the email list about the office not being open. Please don't make leading comments like this. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• (reaffirming) Restore - for the reasons I previously stated in the closed DRV.[35] A few additional notes: some of the criteria decried as being lacking in the most recent text of the article was missing due to disagreements over proper application of RS. For example: the Nielsen Haydens are certainly notable (each has an article here), but there was disagreement whether (and to what degree) their blog, Making Light, could be cited as it pertained to what happened between them and Bauer. (One editor, for reasons of his own, preferred that they and Absolute Write not be mentioned at all.) Similarly, the Writer Beware blog is a direct outgrowth of the Writer Beware section of the SFWA site, is run by two notable writers who are well known and respected for their anti-scam work for SFWA, and should not be deprecated as a source. As for BB's own notability, unfortunately it arises primarily from negative information as reported by SFWA and other sources. If one looks through the old Talk thread, there is considerable discussion of two or three secondary sources that nearly everyone associated with the article considered sufficiently reliable for inclusion. Every attempt was made to limit the article to this, but this limitation ironically has the effect of making the article seem less clear and complete, so that it ends up seeming less well sourced than it actually is. And of course, one of the the main claims that we were trying to properly source, that Bauer has been known to make (poorly founded) legal threats against those who mention her online in a negative light, is now confirmed by the existence of this very docket in Superior Court in NJ. This seems likely to engender the sort of mainstream reporting that was previously so scarce on the ground. Again, I urge that all these sources and the issues surrounding this article be considered in depth; a superficial reading does not do justice to the complexity of the situation regarding the article and its subject. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. There is no exception for "notable writers who are well known and respected." No blogs, period. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore The deletion rationale hinges on the reliability of the sources. I am convinced of the reliability of SFWA. Surely SWFA has more than enough reliability to at least discuss its worthiness via AfD. Kla'quot 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore MCB makes a very compelling argument for restoration. Statements were all sourced, and not original works of wikipedia. Article should be restored.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore This certainly qualifies as reliable and sourced. I saw no libelous statements, everything was nice and sourced. WP:BLP doesn't mean we can't have neutral article on people just because they are criticised. Oskar 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Endorse I don't feel this meets WP:BIO at all. What in that article establishes notability? The fact that her agency appears in the SFWA worst 20 agencies list can't be it all on its own, as not all of the rest of those agencies seem to have articles. The only other references there are several bios which do nothing for notability, one link that doesn't work at all, a couple blogs entries, and court information that can't be included without delving into the same area of WP:OR that Jimbo already said his piece on. There are no newspaper articles, no other secondary sources of any kind. Even assuming the blogs are reliable sources, from where exactly is her supposed notability coming from? I fully agree with the nominator that this article is completely unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion No content worth salvaging. Complete BLP violation. --Tbeatty 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore and if there's still controversy put through AfD again. The notability of this individual looks potentially questionable, though being in a top twenty suggests she may be worth having an article about and surviving the previous AfD suggests I'm not alone in this suspicion. The alleged BLP violation looks bogus to me, the article's got plenty of decent sources backing up the various statements (the word "blog" is not radioactive) and I don't see any clear NPOV violations. Bryan Derksen 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. So yes, it is radioactive. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted per FCYTravis. Take one unremarkable person, add one or more unremarkable events, and stir in innuendo to taste. The usual recipe for WP:BLP nightmares in fact. Logically there have to be 20 worst agencies in any list of 21 or more literary agencies, so being one of them isn't a great achievement. Usually these kinds of articles are built from newspaper reporting, which is bad enough, but this is based on blogs and dead links. As Tbeatty says, there is nothing here worth salvaging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore (my vote was already in the previous debate). MCB and Karen have shared the facts on this matter in detail above and it makes little sense for me to rehash them. There is no BLP violation to deal with. The deletion being reviewed concerns BLP, if her notability is questioned, that can be handled on AFD. It is not the place of DRV to judge her notability. An article that already survived an AFD does not lack notability to the point it warrants speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this article is restored, it should be done without the bad source material (i.e. blog entries). Cary Bass ^demandez 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per Bryan Derksen et al, and because there was no cause for a speedy deletion in the first place. The article having previously gone through AfD last month ago, the most that should have been done as an initial action by Admin was a further AfD nomination. Js farrar 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore multiple non-trival cites for reliable, verifiable and persistent sources. Meets BLP. Edivorce 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore The sources are all fine: Bauer herself for non-controversial claims, her university for background information on her qualifications, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a large professional organisation that provides advice about finding suitable representation to writers (cited twice -- once from their own page, once from the official blog of "writer beware", one of their projects), a blog produced by an expert in the field of the publishing industry, along with primary documentary evidence of a court case. Despite two of the sources being blogs, they are both acceptable according to the definitions at WP:RS. No information is contained that is not backuped up by at least one of these sources. There has been no violation of WP:BLP here. JulesH 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - in that case, WP:BLP needs reviewing. Saying a source is unusable simply because of the format in which that source is published is so silly as to be beyond belief. Js farrar 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that this proviso needs reviewing. Surely the intent is to prevent Wikipedia from saying, "According to Barney Rubble's blog, Dick Dastardly has been seen cheating in races." Rubble has no standing of reliability in such a case. But if Rubble says, "Fred Flintstone tried to get me fired after I pointed out his illegal rock-crushing methods," and Rubble is a known expert in the field of rock crushing, then that is an appropriate source to cite. He is a) speaking within his field of expertise, and b) talking about what happened to himself in relation to the subject. This is the situation with Bauer vis-a-vis the two blogs mentioned here. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be. From WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." There is no process, approval or editing system involved in a blog. All you have to do is type and submit. That makes them, then, the least-trustworthy and least-credible sources, and for biographies of living persons, there is absolutely no call to use any source which is not absolutely and inarguably credible and reliable. If we simply publish endless piles of blog opinion about a person, what we get is not a biography but a scandal sheet, listing every gripe every person has ever had about said person, no matter how trivial, false or overblown. The only thing we can reliably say about Ms. Bauer is that she's been listed on this "20-worst" list, and that she has a college degree. FCYTravis 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be." And you're missing the point too: Publication method (which is what a blog is) is totally orthogonal to editorial process (which is what you're talking about). Some blogs *are* edited in the format you're talking about. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting that this blog is attached to a reliable website. If they'd posted it to their website instead of the blog. We wouldn't be having this discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or is not self-published, which is the case for one of the two blogs in question. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - All sources pass WP:BLP and WP:RS, deletion was without merit. --Silas Snider (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I agree with Docs original assessment. Additionally, I'm not seeing why this subject meets WP:BIO and the article was certainly very overbalanced negatively while using completely unacceptable sources for those claims (per WP:BLP}. Shell ^babelfish 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment if your issue is notability, then that should be discussed at AfD, after an undeletion, in order to get a wider audience for the question. The last AfD closed with a keep result. Nothing has changed, except that Ms Bauer has issued a law suit against Wikipedia, the SFWA (along with two of its officials), the operators of the blog that is cited in the article, the operator and former operator of the "Absolute Write" web site that is mentioned in the article, a person identified only as "Miss Snark Literary Agent" (!) and others whose names I don't recognise. Suing the SFWA is almost guaranteed to get an article in Publishers Weekly, so notability will be further confirmed there. JulesH 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Restore - this is becoming a widely-discussed issue, and a wikipedia article on it would be helpful. Bias should be addressed through editing, not outright deletion. --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This article was clearly created as an sttack piece. It did not seek to provide a balanced view of the person, but rather to detail derogatory information. Since then it has improved somewhat but it is still unbalanced and too depepndent on inappropriates sources. Perhaps a restoration followed by another AfD would be the best way of resolving the matter. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse but allow article on agency; most of the claims of notability in the article pertain to the agency, not to the individual. Those that do relate to her mostly seem to do so in her role as a representative of the agency. It is the agency, not the individual, who has achieved notability, and the focus of the article should be on that. The founder's personal biographical details are not relevant. Xtifr _tälk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per above.  Grue  08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - Should have gone through AfD. --J2thawiki 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Additional third party source discussing Bauer (albeit briefly and in a manner rather hostile to wikipedia): http://www.israelnews agency.com/citizendiumlarrysangerwikipediawaleswoolbarhillelchapmanlibelisrael4877032807.html (delete space; for some reason this URL won't post without it being embedded) JulesH 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that "israelnews" is considered an unreliable blog whose writer has been banned from Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Restore per JulesH and MCB, particularly MCB's point that Bauer's legal filings are a matter of public record, and the professionalism and expertise of the website owners providing factual information regarding Ms. Bauer. Noirdame 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I have reopened this, as this was not a merge, but a redirect, no content was merged, nor did the closing admin mention anything about merging. This may have been closed accidentally. --Xyzzyplugh 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, should have used the word redirect. Either way, you are not requesting deletion, and no deletion occurred, so there is no need for a deletion review. GRBerry 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Admin chose to Redirect this. First of all, this was redirected without consensus, many more editors were in favor of keeping than deleting, and gave reasons for their position. Secondly, the article was removed for violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, while it is not at all certain that it does. Specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not ban articles on words, it merely says we don't have dictionary definition articles. Removing this article violates long-standing tradition, if not policy, that we don't delete articles which clearly and obviously can be cleaned up and rewritten into high quality articles, simply because they are not high enough quality yet. Why is Thou a featured article, while "The" is essentially deleted? Etymologists have written vast amounts on the word "The", and if Thou can be good enough to be a featured article, undeniably The could too, if anyone bothered to do so. Deleting an entire class of articles, those on words, automatically unless they are already high quality and well-sourced, will prevent us from ever being ABLE to improve them into high quality articles. This violates the basic process that a huge percentage of our best articles follow: low quality stub becomes ok quality stub becomes ok quality article becomes good quality article becomes good quality well sourced article becomes excellent quality sourced article. If you auto-delete a certain category of articles half way through the process, claiming that the problem is the process isn't finished yet, then how is the process ever supposed to get finished? If we want to ban all articles on words, then rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to say so, and start with Thou, a featured article, to prove we really mean it. Otherwise, this is an ok quality but not yet well enough sourced article, and we know full well there are reliable sources on this, here's one out of a large number which exist, do what we do in every other situation, keep and clean up. Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn due to lack of consensus. Although, this is simply an editorial decision, so we should just be able to reverse the redirect - the history is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse status quo. Redirect to article (grammar) ensures that the encyclopaedic topic of grammatical articles is kept, without the dictionary definition. Close is correct: "has potential" and "important subject" are just opinions and have no bearing on whether an article should be kept per policy. And the "in popular culture" section really was one of the worst of its kind that I can recall. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • While I admittedly do not fully understand the deletion review procedure - how does what you said relate to the central issue that, 1. there was no consensus to delete, and 2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not require the deletion of articles which currently contain nothing but a dictionary definition? WP:NPOV does not insist on deletion of articles which are currently POV, WP:V does not insist on deletion of articles which currently aren't full sourced, without even trying to look for sources, why would you assume Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary requires deletion of articles which are currently a dicdef(assuming that's what this was, which is not certain either, the editors advocating Keep thought it was more)? --Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment by me: It is possible that I have not fully understood the deletion review process, in terms of the way I wrote the above. As it may be that I am merely supposed to explain how the deletion process was not followed properly: This article does not warrant deletion due to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:WINAD does not insist on the deletion of all articles on words. The fact that Thou, an article on a word, is a featured article, is the clearest possible evidence of this. Since WP:WINAD only requires deletion of articles which can never be anything more than a dicdef, and this clearly can be more, then no deletion is required by WP:WINAD. As no other reason for deletion was ever given, and as the presence of reliable sources clearly meets WP:V or WP:A or whatever we're using today, and as there was no consensus to delete, deletion(redirection) was inappropriate and should be overturned. --Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If restored, this article really should not have an "In popular culture" section. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• DRV not needed because the article history still exists and the article is not protected. This can be handled by the standard editing process (and dispute resolution if it comes to that). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• technically not needed but the ed. bringing the DRV was not unreasonably confused because the effect of a redirect is almost the same as a deletion: it removes the staus of an article, and it removes the material. Potentially controversial redirect have a review process of their own--was this followed? was the ed. in question made aware of it? Finally, does appeal lie from Redirects for discussion to DR? DGG 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet troll squads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

I believe that the article was neither an "attack" nor an original research. It summarized the investigations of Russian and Polish journalists and activists. The article's editor attributed all the paragraphs to the respective publications. I cannot find a Wikipedia policy mentioning the term "attack". The omnipresence of scabrous comments in the Russian online forums is evident. There are known cases of impersonation of Russian opposition figures and distortion of their statements.

I think instead of deleting the article, one should add more reliable sources to it such as court decisions. Perhaps, expanding the scope of the article to libel cases of vague origin would help. The article already included a reference to the work of Polyanskaya that mentions a court case of libel of Starovoitova.

On my part, I have translated from Russian a bio stub of Nikolai Girenko, a murdered Russian ethnograph who testified in court cases against nationalist groups. I am mentioning this article here because it shows the scale and nature of attacks against the civil dialogue. ilgiz 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see here official decision on personal attack made by this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys. 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.

I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn obvious consensus to keep on AfD, and another outrageous deletion by User:A Man In Black.  Grue  08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the AfD was a trollfest, Grue's amusingly hysterical assertion notwithstanding. But we could relist semiprotected if anyone thinks it's worth the effort. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that most of those who voted "keep" are trolls? That's "hysterical assertion" if I saw one. What happened here is User:A Man In Black, who doesn't know jack about Russian or Polish politics, completely ignoring opinions of people who do. That's what I call "systemic bias", which we're supposed to counter, not encourage more.  Grue  14:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. >Radiant< 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Relist for the reasons I've presented above in this undelete request. ilgiz 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, AfD is also no place for ignoring votes and discriminating users' opinion. The discussion was NOWHERE NEAR a "delete" consensus.AlexPU 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, clearly no consensus for a deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Overturn. I have posted my opinion here User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive20#Deletion_of_Internet_squads_article, and I am working toward improving the article under a different name. More sources are added, primarily about similar "Internet teams" in China. It would be great if Ilgiz (who perhaps knows this subject better than me) and other editors could help to improve the article.Biophys 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as stated already, this is from the AFD page, section titled, How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." not to mention the Admin's comments on the page, "I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping." Betaeleven 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist - I believe there was some consensus to delete in the original debate - unless I am missing/miscounted something there were more !votes to delete. That said, there was more than a little confusion going on there and it wouldn't hurt to try and build a more solid consensus one way or another. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I was made aware of Ukrained (talk • contribs) stumping for votes in e-mail on ANI, as well as this article being used as a brush with which to smear Wikipedia users. The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources and the fact that the claims made were not supported by the sources, and these arguments were poorly refuted by keep comments, if refuted at all. Thanks for the laugh, though, Grue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources". OK, let's see if it's really the case, or you're making it up on the spot:
    • "Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either" (great argument)
    • "Looks like a conspiracy theory to me." (aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    • "It's surely a conspiracy theory."
    • "OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition." (aka TLA alphabet soup)
  • There were actually 7 sources, most of them inline. The delete arguments like "WP:NOR" are self-defeating. You made your decision based on some WP:ANI rumor, and closed the debate without even reading it. Just admit it, because we all know it's true.  Grue  21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• relist. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place. DGG 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of the article. (1) Users Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum and CBR prepare new out of Wikipedia canvassing for this article. Please see the following messages: Message one, message two. I would like to stress that these users continue their out-of-wiki canvassing right there. I think they have attracted more users now. (2) As I am Russian speaking guy, I would like to notice that Biophys esentially links his article to three sources. First, eye for an eye publication which alleges that users of some forums are FSB employees, no evidence is given. Second source translation of the article by Polyanskaya which repeats the same pattern - asserts that some internet users are from FSB without any evidence. Third source is a fiction (Anastasia) written by some dissident. There are no any conclusive sources. if this is a Wikipedia, I believe we should cite not the yellow press, not the hoax reportes like UFO-nauts, but serious sources. While internet and e-mail spying is implemented in US and EU after September 11th, and everyone knows about that, we don't need to represent such an article about Russian using these dubious sources. If it would be an authoritative newspaper - that would be another case. (3) This article initially was created by Biophys in order to proclaim me (Vlad fedorov) and administrator Alex Bakharev, FSB employees for our position on some edits to the relative articles. If this article would be created, I feel that Biophys would behave uncivil to us and would continue his uncivil personal attacks. Vlad fedorov 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Vlad, just what the heck do you mean by those diffs??? If users are just requesting each others mails - do they conspire to break Wikirules? If they are writing each other - should they be punished only for this? Presumption of guilt? ADMINISTRATORS!!! THIS USER SEEMS TO BE CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP, SPYING AND POLITICAL PROFILING ON WIKIPEDIA! IMHO, HE SHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION A.S.A.P.!!!AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I speak Russian too. So you should be honest with the naive Westerners, and I'll be watching you :)AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment from a very naive Westerner:Vlad fedorovis of course very uncivil in his argumentation, but anyone who doubts that e-mail is being used by these people to evade blocks, to attack fellow Wikipedians and, (specifically the point Vlad wants to make but getting lost in indignation), to canvas for votes: [36]. --Pan Gerwazy 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-sense! How this new diff is relevant to discussion here? Your Vlad was talking of another editor and another situation! Please remove your post ASAP.AlexPU 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As for me, I've never received any mail or other messages about the article in question. BUT! Look what I got: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote." [37] They got a bunch of such reservations there. So, no rule for a decision huh? If you're against my admin POV, I'll invent a rule for you anyway? "Everything for my friends, law for my enemies"? Huh? My opinion: BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP! BTW, I should be reading rules regularly... Maybe some of admins that often block me would appear to be rulesbreakers themselves:)AlexPU 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on user AlexPU. Please see the following discussion between Biophys (author of the article about Internet troll squads) and this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexPU#Could_you_give_me_a_piece_of_advice.3F . It follows that AlexPU was attracted by Biophys to this voting out of Wikipedia using e-mail.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes! BURN A MAN IN BLACK AT THE STAKE!

Typically, vote counts are ignored when it's clear that someone is actively influencing the vote count. If the solicited users had come in with convincing arguments, that'd be fine, but closing admins typically ignore the mass of numbers when it's clear that someone was stumping for votes.

By the way, Ukrained isn't being blocked or anything (at least, not by me and not to my knowledge); the "votes" he stumped up were simply ignored except insofar as the users made convincing arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you name the users whose opinions you ignored, and provide the proof that they were asked by User:Ukrained to vote as they did?  Grue  20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reports of solicits in e-mail, in both the AFD and on ANI, motivated me to ignore the vote count entirely. If you're asking how many noses I counted, the answer is zero. I ignored everyone's "vote" since the vote was clearly tainted and evaluated the arguments. There's no reasonable way to figure out exactly who was solicited and who was not, nor any particularly good reason to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. The main argument still is that it is an attack page, and what is worse - the canvassing and the reactions of the people being canvassed prove that they not only want to keep it, but they want to keep it that way. WP:BLP and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --Pan Gerwazy 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Attack against whom? Original AfD nominator said: "Essentially an attack page against Putin". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_troll_squads. But it is not attack page against any specific person, as anyone can see looking at the article.Biophys 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that you should think about your trying to rig the voting in Wikipedia twice. Everything is evident about personalities of the individuals attacked from the Adminstrators noticeboard and your now deleted comments. I think that no one here would let you spit on the face of decent Wikipedia editors.Vlad fedorov 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. It is an attack page, a WP:OR galore and a WP:BLP infringement. We had enough problems with conspiracy pages (*cough* 9/11 *cough*) to not restart them. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The rationale was clear, and some of the above comments make it clearer. DGG 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Looks clear enough to me that. I agree with the rationale to delete.--Dycedarg ж 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per JzG and others. Unsubstantiated libels against active politicians have no place in Wikipedia. I am very surprized by the attitude of Grue, which I find rather unhealthy. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Important notice. User Biophys is going to make a new article on "Internet Troll Squads". Please see his stub here User:Biophys/tutorial.Vlad fedorov 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not want to get involved in this personal feud between you two (in fact, I find its very existence utterly abhorrent), but I would like to mention here what I mentioned on the talk page of that draft. I think the article may have a place on wikipedia if it is mentioned in the introduction that the existence of this is alleged, not an undisputable fact. I believe that it is notable (it seems to fulfill the primary criteria), but those sources, as far as I can see, do not conclusively prove it. It is notable for being an idea which has been written about and for being part of Russia's political landscape, but it shouldn't be presented as a fact. My main hobby is creating film articles, so I see no problem with writing an article about potential fiction, or even downright lies. That shouldn't be a consideration - what should be considered is whether this idea is influential. The sources seem to suggest that it is. As such, it should be written about from the perspective of not endorsing this accusation but of presenting it much as one would present the theories in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Note: I came to know of this article from Portal:Russia/New article announcements page. Esn 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Response to your comment:Yes and by making Wikipedia a storage place for the yellow press, X-files, allegations and hearsays, you also give to some crazy people ground to state that this Wikipedia editor is working for KGB. We would all thank you for this after someone here would be called KGB agent. The author of this article wasn't bothered for very long period after its creation, I never complained that this article was OR, or had unreliable sources. I complained after Biophys alleged and wrote section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he ignited discussion of the peronalities of Wikipedia editors. And this article was created by Biophys specifically for this purpose. I asked admins to check my IP and IP of Alex Bakharev, to confirm that we are not even from Russia. You, Esn, is not administrator and as such you cannot guarantee that Biophys and his friends won't start these violations of Wikipedia policies again. Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, that is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Second, what you are saying is factually wrong. It was an anonymous user who started that discussion, and I only reacted to his/her accusations. See: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration.Biophys 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, I would like to remind you that it is not wikipedia policy to prevent the creation of articles about notable subjects if those subjects are likely to be vandalised. If we start doing that, the vandals have already won. Courage is needed, dear editor, not fear and appeasement. If the article is recreated, I promise to put it on my watch list (as will many others, I don't doubt) and revert any attacks against you or other wikipedia editors that may pop up. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)