User:Badlydrawnjeff/DRV is Broken

Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted under CSD A7. The criteria used to justify deletion was inappropriate for the article in question - also the article documented the forthcoming release of what is in my opinion a notable single (first in three years) by a notable artist. I asked the deleting admin for his reasoning behind the deletion but have received no reply as of yet. Kurt Shaped Box 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, google cache shows no assertion of notability. Feel free to recreate with such an assertion, but just being a single is not one. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm... you do realize that's not true, right? Phil Sandifer 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, pointless and inexplicable use of Articles-7. Redirect to The Best Damn Thing if necessary, but leave the history behind it. Do not bother listing on AfD, Lasagne is obviously notable, and an AfD would almost certainly end in keep (with some editorial qualifcation such as 'in order to merge' or 'as a redirect', but that isn't relevant here), no consensus at most. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - lasgane? :D Martinp23 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Lasagne. Undoubtedly notable. ~ trialsanderrors 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also extremely delicious, containing all four of the essential food groups (cheese, meat, pasta, more cheese). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I assume you're talking about the Canadian singer? I can see cheese and more cheese, but where's the meat? ~ trialsanderrors 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• The recipe for pop-punk stardom appears to require no more than seven stone of mutton dressed as lamb. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Myspace is not a reliable source - can be recreated when a press release from her record company is made available/the single is itself released. (aeropagitica) 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm... I would think Avril Lavigne's MySpace is a reliable source for information about Avril Lavigne, actually... Phil Sandifer 23:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - single by notable artist. Phil Sandifer 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per Sam Blanning -- Samir धर्म 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Anything realistically possible regarding a major recording artist should not have an A7 speedy done to it, period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to snowball this. Seems like her Myspace announcement triggered 88 news items, as a Google news seach for lasagne+girlfriend reveals. ~ trialsanderrors 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

G.ho.st (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

new text as follows TareqM 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep salted, still fails A7. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, version above does not assert notability (CSD Articles-7) and is written like an advert (General-11). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No assertion of notability as per WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE; no reliable sources provided either. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salting, no assertion that reliable secondary sources have covered this. Seraphimblade 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I notice that the new version posted above nearly perfectly matches the content that was deleted before. Therefore, the previous decision is obviously valid. Ian¹³/t 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - maybe with a redirect to thin client. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• How is the page G.ho.st different in terms of notability and reliability of source from the page YouOS?? TareqM 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Now a substantial size (significantly larger than Encyclopedia Gamia) with mentions in The Guardian (UK) and the Accenture Digital Forum in addition to GameCentral on UK teletext and within Retro Gamer (UK magazine). Tim 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for now, as a "mention" in The Guardian isn't the sort of susbtantial coverage that passes WP:WEB (and consequently presents verifiable information on which to base an article). We're looking for primary-subject articles here, folks, not mentions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - a passing mention in the Technology section of The Grauniad of a Wiki containing 750 articles is not major press coverage in a Journal of Record; the article also has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. (aeropagitica) 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• GamerWiki does not have "750 articles", as you would see if you were to visit it. I also should clarify what I mean by a "mention" - it was part of a review of videogaming information sites, and as well as the URL had a small writeup on the purpose of the site. You have also ignored the other sources I stated above, being two videogaming magazines in the UK. If deletion stands, then I propose that the vast majority of the List of Wikis are also deleted. Tim 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• GamerWiki was recently mentioned (Dec 2006) in an Accenture "Digital Forum" newsletter as a notable videogame information source. -- Tyagi 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Nothing rising above the level of trivial passing mentions, as yet. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• GamerWiki has had a consistent presence in the List of Largest Wikis since the second half of 2006. Notable fact: It is the largest, dedicated, videogame wiki. At the time of writing, it is the 108th largest wiki. -- Tyagi 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... why is being the 108th largest wiki notable? I would estimate that the highest reasonable estimate for number of wikis is a couple hundred thousand. And then you have to realize that 99% of those wikis will be tiny, bad, or otherwise unknown. -Amark moo! 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Around 50% of the rest of the top 100 wiki are Wikimedia Foundation projects. As a dedicated videogame wiki, unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation, GamerWiki could be notable due to its size. -- Tyagi 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bud Delp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame Horse trainer - I'm going from memory as it was a few days ago but I believe this article had a copyright violation notice and someone must have deleted it without seeing that I had come along afterward and edited it properly and removed the copyright violation tag. Please undelete this and I will double check it to ensure it meets proper standards. Thanx. Handicapper 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the re-write. As the template says, you have to leave the copyvio notice in place and start the re-write at the temporary subpage or elsewhere, so that the copyright infringement is properly deleted from the page history. —Centrx→talk • 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Able and Baker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deletion discussions: Nominations 1 2 3 4 Review 1

Last nomination: 5

This is a pre-emptive listing on deletion review, as I anticipate that at least one adminstrator who disagrees.
brenneman 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Appears to meet WP:WEB per Phil's reasoning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Aye, that's the crux of this: Is Phil's interpretation "solid" enough to overturn the more general consensus on the issue of syndication? I have personally tried on more occasions than I care to count to get the issue made clear, but never with any success. Part of the reason I choose to close this is my involvment, as I can say with some authority that there is no consensus that syndication is sufficient. - brenneman 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, if 10 people say "not notable," and then one comes along and says "actually, yes it is, based on the widely accepted guidelines," it should be pretty apparent which side is in the right. If syndication isn't sufficient, then consensus needs to be built at WP:WEB for such a change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I tried before and failed. My personal feeling is that there does exist space for a definition of "notable" that included something like syndication, but at present it's very poorly defined and we end up falling back on "because I say so" style arguments. These are by definition unverifiable and prone to creep. If a well-supported consensus can be built that clearly supports the inclusion of syndicates, I'll restore this page in a heartbeat. Not one of those sloth heart beats, either, the shrew-like "as fast as the laws of physics allow me to push the button" heart beat. - brenneman 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Aaron should not have closed this, having been heavily involved with the third AfD. However, even without his involvement, serious problems exist with this AfD. First, no new evidence was presented in this AfD that was not considered by previous AfDs. Second, the opinions of the previous AfD were discounted - very few of the 20+ keep votes from the previous AfD participated this time, and their previous opinions and arguments were thus wholly discounted. Beyond that, this AfD is a prime example of the treatment of AfD as a court of infinite appeals where articles can be put up again and again until enough people aren't looking that the desired result is achieved. Meanwhile, great pains have been taken to make it as difficult as possible to undelete articles, including the declaration that DRV is not the exact sort of court of infinite appeals that AfD demonstrably is. Complicating this is an abuse of the WP:RS guideline to demand that articles written from primary sources be deleted – something that is not supported by any policy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reliability. Among the arguments made in the AfD are that the webcomic cannot serve as a source for describing characters and events in the webcomic – a claim that is obviously and transparently not supported by either policy or standard practice in fictional topics. Similar arguments with little relationship to Wikipedia's standard and best practices included the claim that the publisher of Able and Baker, Dayfree Press, may be notable, but not everything they publish is (a claim likened to the claim that not every game published by Nintendo is notable, which is flatly untrue). Finally, the AfD was plagued by people with very little understanding of the subject making judgments they were unqualified to make. Despite the claim that AfD is not a vote, these claims were seemingly given equal weight by a clearly biased administrator to the claims of verifiable experts on the subject. Although Wikipedia does not favor experts, that does not and has never meant that their views are put on an equal level with people who neither understand the subject they are making editorial judgments about nor the basic Wikipedia policies surrounding the debate. A final note of grave concern to me - Aaron has used his deletion closure as a declaration that this forms an answer to a long-standing question regarding webcomics and notability - an argument he has long been involved in. It is an egregious abuse of his power to close AfDs to step into an AfD on a topic he has been personally involved in in the past and use the AfD as an occasion to declare his views policy. Phil Sandifer 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll wear the "heavily involved in third afd" comment, and accept a trout-slapping if the peanut gallery thinks it warranted. I choose to close this afd despite that because I have been actively involved in attempting to create a consensus on the guideline, and in fact am the person who last raised syndication on talk:web. There isn't consensus there, and I know it better than most. - brenneman 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, yes, I trout slap you for doing that, but a trout slap isn't a reason to overturn a good closure. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't think the "court of infinite appeals" rant is all that justified in regards to this case. After AfD #3, over a year passed before we saw #4 and #5, and we have seen that consensus can change over such a period of time. (In particular, the much higher demand for reliable third-party sources in recent months) It's not like we've been seeing this pop up at AfD every month or so, like certain other issues. WarpstarRider 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was pretty clear. The only argument which would actually make sense for overturning seems to be "you aren't qualified to express your opinion", which is absurd. For the rest, you're simply arguing against what people said, which is inappropriate. This isn't an extension of the AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No - everyone is, of course, welcome to express their opinions on an AfD. And it is the job of the closing admin to disregard opinions that are ill-informed, inconsistent with existing practice, or just plain moronic. This has nothing to do with some notion of free speech, but on the other hand nothing does and nothing should oblige us to count transparently wrong opinions (like that not every game by Nintendo is notable) as equivalent to those of qualified experts. Phil Sandifer 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Part of the idea of Wikipedia is that experts don't get to overrule everyone else by saying they are experts. If you'd like that to happen, go edit Citizendium. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that experts ought be taken seriously, and their views should not be treated as equivalent to the views of people who show a clear failure to grasp Wikipedia policy or the subject matter. That doesn't mean "expert vote = 10 non-expert votes" or "expert automatically wins all debates." It means a careful and prudent closure of an AfD would give some greater weight to the opinions of an expert and some lesser weight to opinions that do not mesh with existing policy and practice. Phil Sandifer 13:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if you ignore the experts, if we're going to baseit off of consensus, consensus is that WP:WEB is widely accepted as the prevaling guideline for webcomics. Thus, if most of the delete voters are citing non-notability, usually based around WP:WEB, and someone comes around and notes how completely incorrect that argument is, how much weight should each side be given? If 10 people say a squirrel isn't fuzzy, but I point out all the hair on a squirrel, do we say that "even though it's obvious the squirrel has hair, it's not fuzzy?" --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Um... WP:WEB is meant to show what is likely to have notability. WP:N is higher, and WP:N requires multiple independent sources. Otherwise, any article is just OR. Nobody has been able to source the comic to anything but the comic itself. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per Phil and Jeff. --Gwern (contribs) 05:22 16 January 2007 (GMT)
• Endorse closure and Speedy close. This has been through 3 votes in the past week, all with the same result, so clearly consensus exists. If Phil (or anyone) thinks they can create a verifiable article based on reliable independent sources, he can do so in userspace and we can vote again based on that. Until that happens, the issue needs to rest. A new vote every few days wastes everyone's time and does not help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, clear consensus to delete. WarpstarRider 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - clear consensus. As with GNAA, it's time to move on with life. --BigDT 06:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, while this matter arguably should have been handled by a different person then the one who did, a different decision could not realistically have been made by anyone else. WP:NOT a bureaucracy, and a potential misstep by the closing admin isn't a reason to overturn a decision obviously in line with the AfD's overwhelming consensus. Seraphimblade 07:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even after the presentation of the syndication on Dayfree Press argument, there was still a consensus that the webcomic did not meet WP:WEB notability guidelines. This article has received far more attention than the average AFD candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, WP:WEB/WP:RS; bogdan 09:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The closing admin (and DRV nominator) is actually seeking elucidation on the interpretation of notability of web resources and their reliability in this context. Merely quoting the guidelines back at him won't be very enlightening. ;-) Kim Bruning 10:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, put this to rest. If AFD is not a court of infinite appeals, neither is DRV. >Radiant< 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• GNAA comparisons belie the fact that this AfD contained some of the worst arguments for keeping I've seen in a long time, including GNAA. I might accept "you don't know what you're talking about" (Phil Sandifer's argument, abridged) if the AfD was on some obscure theory of quantum nuclear physics, but this is a webcomic. That is, a story publicly available on the Internet, told in pictures, a format originally designed for people who hadn't yet mastered reading, before it gained mainstream popularity (or possibly before the education system became so dumbed down people started leaving at 18 unable to read, write and add up, but that's a theory for another time). And this is supposed to be a subject that requires some sort of expert knowledge in order to judge an article's worthiness? Where can I get a PhD in Webcomic Appreciation so I can take part in high-powered discussions over whether an article with no reliable sources can be deleted? Does Jason Gastrich's university do one? Can I get life credit for the number of times I've reread Scary Go Round? Ridiculous. AfD properly closed and no new information presented. Endorse deletion. I read a total of 17-20 webcomics, incidentally, depending on whether newspaper-syndicated comics on the Internet count, so I'm not snobbish about them. It just makes me more appreciative of the fact that there is nothing to write about most of them except that they exist, plus the requisite fancruft. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is difficult because I respect Phil's expertise in this subject area, but the AfD was pretty much unequivocal in deciding that no reliable independent sources have been provided on which to base an article. Of course we can use the originators as a source for minor details, but without a decent body of independent critical review how can we have an article without violating core policy? It is telling that even after five AfDs, a couple of deletions and two deletion reviews, not one single independent source was cited in the article. 100% of the references were back to the originator's website. Ultimately, if this has not been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of its creators, it fails WP:N, which is mainly an expression of the likelihood of being able to satisfy and verify the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. No independent sources = no article. We do this every day, dozens if not hundreds of times. The fact that we like and respect Phil does not mean we can do an end-run around policy for him; the article can, however, be re-created as soon as suitable references are provided. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Sam Blanning and JzG. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the consensus was clear even after the last edits to the article and ignoring those who opined previously without updating their opinion. I also endorse trout slap for the closing admin; we could have had less drama had this been left to an uninvolved admin. And there has been plenty of AFD backlog this weekend needing closures. GRBerry 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per JzG. - Francis Tyers · 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, Phil Sandifer's claims that he is the final arbiter of what is or is not notable in the world of webcomics is not supported by policy or consensus. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, clear consensus for reputable third-party sources over original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• relistI do not think there was consensus, & I think it was obvious from the debate that there was no consensus. There were several main topics that need further discussion:

1. Whether the publisher alone is sufficient to make a webcomic notable?
2. If not, are special standards needed?
3. Can sources other than the usual RS be considered as Reliable for topics such as this.DGG 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and do not relist, just keep. The current state of affairs with webcomics throws out too many comics that are significant. (at 600+ episodes that's significant right there) The guidelines need to be broadened and the requirement for secondary sources outside of the syndicator dumped or softened. Over in the music arena, a band gets transferrable notability if its work is on a major label. Not as much notability as the label itself, but if the label is major enough, every band is notable enough to warrant an article. The same principle should apply here, Dayfree Press is major enough (we have an academic telling us so) to warrant retention of every comic it hosts. Why? Dayfree Press editors are well respected enough in the webcomics world to make notable judgements about what is and isn't notable. IF WP had only room for 10,000 articles, that might be different, but the notabily standards in this area need to be relaxed enough to allow this comic to pass, since WP has room for many more than that, and since it has room for many more articles in other areas (that's not a "they need to go" nor is it a "but they get to stay, no fair" it's an example of where notability standards are at, and rightly so, for other topic areas) Nota bene, I think Aaron closed this and then DRV'ed it right away for a good reason, to help drive critical thought here, his DRV's have the virtue of being thorough presentations of the relevant material and (dare I say it) of attracting wider audiences. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If there were even primary sources, it might be acceptable, but there aren't. There is just the thing itself. Part of the idea of WP:NOR is that you can't cite what you're saying to the thing you are talking about; you have to cite it to a source. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, that's not what NOR is, and it never has been what NOR is. I quote from NOR: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Phil Sandifer 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I supposed you are right. Still, the fact remains, you need other sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  600 episodes isn't significant, it's merely long. Achieving notability in the arts generally requires talent and/or luck (usually a combination of the two), which eventually is rewarded by the attention of reliable sources. Making 600 webcomics just requires persistence. You might even go so far as to say that a comic that's been around for 600 episodes and hasn't attracted any attention that we can cite as a source is probably less likely to be notable than one that's been around for less time. You can't exactly say that it's too new and fresh to have gotten the attention it deserves.

  As for the claim that comics carried by Dayfree Press are automatically notable, I might be willing to consider that, except that Dayfree Press tells me nothing about what makes it so notable, and from the recent AfDs I only managed to get that its editor is "one of the 25 big names in webcomics in 2004" (they managed to find 24 others?) by Comixpedia, a special interest webzine not notable enough for an article here as of last November, and that's it. On the evidence available to me currently, Dayfree Press itself might not survive an AfD. Open to correction. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  You were sounding reasonable until you made the suggestion that there were fewer than 25 important figures in webcomics. Phil Sandifer 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Probably, since I was being sardonic. When I said I was "open to correction" I kind of meant wanting to be corrected about the bit about Dayfree Press not having a claim to notability despite being relied upon as the basis for the notability of this comic, not the bit where I was deliberately being mean. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion There is a clear consensus to delete, and no reason in policy to do otherwise. The arguments being made here and basically the same being made on the AfD and they were rejected there. I can see no pressing reason to overturn the consensus to delete.--Doc^g 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The closing admin is supposed to determine whether there was a rough consensus, not to decide whether he personally approves of the consensus. No evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or piling on. Participants for the most part gave coherent explanations of their reasons. Most of those explanations give me the impression that the participants had, in fact, reviewed the article and were not voting on ideology. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - As per above, AFD 4 and AFD 5 easily shows a consensus to delete. As much as I respect expert opinion on matters of content, I do not respect claims such as "everything published is notable", which seems to be Sandifer's case here. Lar compares the Dayfree Press to a major record label, this is totally incorrect. Even an indie label such as Rough Trade gets hundreds more links and news sources for its artists than anything Dayfree can come up with for its entire portfolio. - hahnchen 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, we have secondary notability criteria to ensure completeness in areas that may not have sources immediately available, but should. They don't override the fundamental need for reliable secondary sources. We can't build a good article on pure descriptive claims and primary sources; plot summary doesn't make an article on its own. This article has had years for sources to turn up; until someone can supply some (phil sandlifer's opinion doesn't count) this article should stay deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per JzG and Doc. Also, the interpretation of guidelines is determined by consensus. Like policies they are ultimately descriptive rather than perscriptive. Eluchil404 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Policies(Consensus) trump Guidelines(WP:WEB). We don't follow that, the policies lose all meaning and we have chaos. Just H 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I hereby announce I am an expert in Peanuts, because I read it, so am the only authority on whether an article on Charlie Brown's shoes should be kept. What? It's the same logic. Proto::► 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Che-Lives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD|2004 VFD)

regular editors were unavailable, page notable as per google rank and BBC articles on che referencing the forum as proof of his popularity [[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, entirely unambiguous; if you had sources, they were not in the article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information presented. If there are sources either the article must be recreated with them, or they should be cited here, and from the nomination they sound like passing mentions to me, which are not sufficient. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per process - article unsourced and no notability asserted as per WP:WEB. (aeropagitica) 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn over 9000 members, listed second in google searches for Che, 3rd in google searches for Che Guevara, has been around over 7 years as a thriving radical leftist community. The radical left may be a niche, but amongst the radical left, che-lives is the largest community. That makes it notable, passing mentions or not. If there's an article on the Maoist Internationalist Movement, a "party" that exists solely on the internet and has an article attacking Che-Lives, there should be an article on Che-Lives.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|Che y Marijuana]] 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment What we are looking for is published, reliable sources independent of the forum/organization/its owners/its publishers that are primarily about this forum. (Mentioning in passing or using as a source themselves is not enough.) Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia, so it is a tertiary source covering topics of significance, not a publisher of original research. As such, we can't rely solely on primary sources, we need secondary sources. They need to be published so that our readers can verify what we say. Some of them need to be independent so that we can adhere to the policy requiring a neutral point of view. I see from your contribution history that you are a long standing contributor that wasn't active much in the second half of 2006. Following the Wikimania conference this summer, there has been a major culture shift on the importance of sourcing. Levels of sourcing previously thought to be good enough to keep and expect the article to get better some day are now insufficient to prevent the deletion of articles.

  Arguments based on the presence of another article carry no weight; see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability for the long explanation of why. Similarly, arguments based on the absence of another article carry little weight - unless it can also be shown when and why that article was deleted, we may just never have had that article or the topic may be covered at a different title.

  As to the timing, the AFD shows evidence that concerns were raised on the article and talk page prior to the AFD; the deleted history shows that it was over a month prior. GRBerry 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

MKULTRA Pop Culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

improper use of AfD Wyatt Riot 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is in regards to an "MKULTRA in Pop Culture" section which was split off from the Project MKULTRA article and immediately nominated for AfD by its splitter. Since this was done by the "author" of the article, it was deleted as db-author. I don't necessarily disagree with the deletion of the new article, but I believe the information was relevant and should at least be added back into the original Project MKULTRA article. Wyatt Riot 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• It doesn't require a DRV to make an edit to Project MKULTRA to reintroduce this to the article. --W.marsh 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I just didn't want to be seen as circumventing any procedures. I'll go ahead and reintroduce. Thank you! :) Wyatt Riot 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added the material back into the article. If other editors believe that MKULTRA Pop Culture should remain a separate article, I would agree with that as well, and would have no problem removing it from the main (Project MKULTRA) article. Wyatt Riot 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon Roland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The article was resubmitted with different content to satisfy the established requirements for notability. The original article was created by someone else as a stub, apparently based on the subject being a candidate for public office in the upcoming 2006 election. Although one can understand that after the subject has been a candidate and not won his level of notability might cease to qualify him for inclusion, there are many other notability criteria the subject does satisfy, which can be easily verified by a web search. For example, he has been the subject of a chapter of a book written by a prominent journalist, Jonathan Karl, then a reporter for the New York Post, later a correspondent for CNN, and currently a frequent on-air reporter for ABC News.

Furthermore, the subject has a prominence based on his work as editor of the digital editions of most of the more important works of constitutional history, law, and government, including most of the works of the Founders, the works they read and cited, and commentaries by their contemporaries. These online editions are not mere copies of work done by others. They are authoritative scholarly edits (some in progress) that have caused others to cite those versions as authoritative, and in some cases, unique. Most of the other copies online of these works began as copies of his work, often without attribution. That work has led to the site being linked to by many other sites, which has put the site at or near the top of search engines, and led to recognition as a leading constitutional scholar, evidence by being invited to write articles for encyclopedias, speak to conferences, and submit articles to various journals.

It is suggested that on future deletion reviews, the subject be contacted and afforded an opportunity to respond to arguments for deletion. That was easily done for the subject here discussed, and was not done. The reviewers should also take the time to do a search on the name, which would have yielded abundant material to support notability, or to follow the links provided by the contributors, which often provide justification by reference that are not repeated in the body of the article, in an effort to keep the article concise. Jon Roland 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - vanity article. -- RHaworth 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and keep deleted, new article does not show multiple non-trivial sources unrelated to the subject covering the subject (arguably shows one, but that's not multiple). Seraphimblade 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - vanity and conflict of interest issues with the author and subject of the article. Notability required to be asserted with reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per above; even nomination for review sounds like a vanity page. Furthermore, I find the suggestion that living persons are somehow inherently more notable than deceased persons laughable. Mr. Roland had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for his claimed notability, which he failed to do, choosing instead to make circular arguments on AfD and here.--chris.lawson 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I protest the statement that I have had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for "notability". I don't keep scapbooks of such things. I selected one that came to mind, and was by someone the administrators are likely to have seen on television. I don't have long periods of time to add content in response to such demands, but must find time between other projects. Yet you consider a few hours since I added that content as "ample opportunity"? I can and will add additional sources when I find them, but that could take several days or weeks. Further, nowhere did I suggest that living persons are more notable than dead ones. I never discussed anything like that anywhere. My scholarly work is all about bringing to the public the works of notable persons, most of whom have been dead for centuries. I am loathe to assert my own "notability", preferring to let my work speak for itself, but when someone creates the article as a stub, and many people discover it and ask for content, then they tell me it has been deleted, I feel a need to set the historical record straight. It is not about "Jon Roland" but his work and the work of others in the Constitution Society. Unfortunately, the tendency of too many people to argue from authority rather than considering work on its own merits is difficult to escape. Dismissing the worker disrespects the work, in this environment. I also object to the summary deletion of the article on the Constitution Society, which it appears is somehow related to this action by the administators. The Constitution Society is a real organization with real members and real activities, the evidence of which is online for anyone to examine. More people read its materials than read all the textbooks in all the lawschools, and its influence is real. That has to count for something unless there is an ideological agenda at work here. Jon Roland 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The "ideological agenda" is that articles must be about subjects which are verifiable and notable, and all content in them should be verified by reliable sources. If you can bring quite a few sources to bear in several weeks, then recreate the article, with those sources cited, in several weeks, and it will likely do just fine! You may want to note, however, that we do offer some cautions for those writing articles about oneself or a subject very close to oneself-it's very difficult to remain neutral in such a situation. Seraphimblade 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. With some interaction of this kind I may get a sense of the standards you are applying as you understand them, something that does not really come across by merely reading your guidance documents. For example, you now seem to say that "all" content must be verified by those "reliable sources". That goes well beyond your guide documents, which only seem to require validation of notability by a third party, not all content in the article. That is a very severe requirement. I don't know many scholars who could get affidavits that they did all the work of editing a historical writing, much less of all the other things they do of importance. They don't always have witnesses. They just do the work, publish it, and readers review their work and decide for themselves how well it was done. It is not as though there is anyone else who is suspected of doing the work. And what is the validation that the work was done according to scholarly standards? Cites in other works, or by other sites, with favorable comments, of course, but much work of that kind can be available for years before anyone comments on it, other than to make use of it for his own work. There are fashions in history that lead its practitioners to exhibit herd behavior and focus on hot topics to the neglect of those that others might consider more important in the longer term. But being out of fashion does not invalidate the merit of the work. That should always be evaluated on its own merits, not on who does it, or or what others say about it.

As for verification, what is so difficult about just going online and reading it? It might be more fun to try to find it on a library shelf, but in the age of the Internet online publication is displacing paper publication, which is no longer the sole standard for credibility. Yes, I still write articles for print publications, mainly because I get paid for it, but frankly I almost never read the printed editions. I read the copies online. And I suspect, so do increasing numbers of others.

One more point: If it is your intent to allow deficiencies to be corrected (even if you don't take the time to notify the submitter of such deficiencies to give him a chance to do so), then how is he supposed to correct deficiencies if there is no article he can edit or his submissions are blocked by a protected status? I can understand if the hassles of administering a site like Wikipedia make you somewhat impatient and disposes you to make summary decisions, but there comes a point beyond which impatience becomes abusive. I have been intervening in several cases against judges who, perhaps in a mood of impatience, have been riding roughshod over due process protections and the rules of judicial procedure and conduct. Become too arbitrary and the public is going to start rejecting Wikipedia the way they are beginning to reject the justice system. Jon Roland 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we have review processes, as you are currently using. :) However, a judge is hardly "arbitrary" to say "Hey, in order to work with your claim, I need to see some evidence." It's the same when we request sources-we want our readers to be able to see that what they're reading in our articles is, in fact, true. We also want to see that there's enough source material out there on a subject that we can have a good, comprehensive article on it, from verifiable information. If it'll take you a few weeks to find those sources, come back in a few weeks with them! No one's out to get anyone, but just like anything, we do have some rules, and we try to follow them. One of those involves recreating articles after they've been deleted-it's possible, no decision here is forever, but there's got to be some evidence that it'll be better then it was when the community decided it should be deleted. That's not arbitrary-indeed, what would be arbitrary is to allow someone to recreate the same article over and over against the community's expressed wish, with no way of allowing the community to have input on whether the old decision should be reconsidered. Surely, as an attorney, you do realize that such review processes are quite important, and not always instantaneous? Seraphimblade 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's rather arrogant to write in the third person, don't you think? Endorse deletion as clearcut vanity -- Samir धर्म 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, constant allegations of an ideological agenda whenever a page you create is deleted does not help. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A judge, however, if he follows established due process, rules of judicial procedure, and precedent, will set a date and time for an evidentiary hearing. He doesn't just render judgment sua sponte and without due notice. It is now clear that I am going to have to maintain copies of the edit windows for things I submit so I have something to work from in making revisions and resubmitting. But I can imagine most people don't come to this realization until they have been burned in this way. If, as you say, I can resubmit when corrections are made, how am I supposed to make them if the article is blocked? Or if the revised version is summarily deleted again, within seconds, apparently without the revisions having gotten due consideration? And do you ever allow for some reasonable grace period on the creation of new articles, to allow time for them to be composed carefully, and the content you demand be added at a leisurely pace that most of the world operates by when they have other demands on their time? Why not allow the author to finish his edits before deleting the article? If he has the article open for editing (and you have the ability to detect that condition, which a good revision control system has), that should be a clue he is still working on it.

It is not arrogant to refer to myself in the third person. That is the way I think of myself when writing about myself as the subject of a discussion. It is common practice to do so to maintain the kind of detachment needed to be reasonably objective.

And if you are going to respond to a suspicion of an ideological agenda by punishing the complainant, that is precisely the kind of abusive behavior that proves the complaint. Judges do that, too, and it doesn't bring confidence in their judicial integrity.Jon Roland 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're treating this as a legal proceeding. The issue is not if your article got due process, the issue is if it should be undeleted. Since you appear to have no secondary sources, at all, it should not be undeleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of you has already aknowledged I have one, the book by Jonathan Karl, who devotes a chapter to me, and who, besides being a correspondent for ABC News, has credentials as a historian in his own right. He is notable enough to have an article of his own, although I don't know him well enough to write it. He has interviewed me by phone and on television, but I didn't have much time to ask about him.Jon Roland 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter to me what "one of us" has done; we are not a homogenous entity. Regardless, even if you had such a chapter, I would still endorse deletion, because that's not enough to establish notability, nor to verify article content. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but it does indicate you are making hasty decisions and not even reading either the submissions or the comments carefully. Those of you who have volunteered to be administrators are to be commended for your willingness to do so, but whether you buy into the fact or not, you are actually operating in a judicial role in a private law arena, and as such, the rest of the community has a right to expect proper judicial conduct from you. I would hate to see the Wikipedia experiment dissolve into contention in real courts over property rights in the articles about living people or organizations, defamation, neglect, or historical inaccuracy. None of us want that. But if you neglect to practice your judgment like good judges, that could happen. If you were editors of a private publication, only the publisher would have to be concerned about that, but when you create a kind of public utility or commons that has a real impact of the lives and fortunes of people, that situation changes. No academic department or law review journal could be as arbitrary as some of you have been today. A little collegiality would go a long way.

There is also a problem with verifying "all content". Not all important subjects are investigated by large numbers of people. Some, especially in the early stages, are known only to a single investigator. For example, I have done significant research on letters of marque and reprisal. You have a somewhat deficient article on "Letter of Marque" that I contemplate correcting. However, there is almost no publshed scholarly literature on the subject, and I suspect at this point I may be the world's leading expert. Am I barred from adding my findings because there is no one else to verify them? Yet it is the one measure which might have made the incursion into Afghanistan constitutional, which I at least consider important. Yet when I asked a deputy to the U.S. Attorney General, charged with managing the legal issues involved in that engagement, to explain the topic, he admitted he didn't know anything about it. This was a nominee to the the federal bench parked in the AG's office pending Senate hearings, and he not only knew nothing about a critical subject in his area of responsbility, he disdained learning anything about it. That is the way we get the public officials whose decisions affect our lives! But the topic is also not fashionable in academia, so getting an article published in a professional journal is unlikely. Self-publication is the only option. That doesn't mean it lacks validity. It just puts the burden of verifying on the reader. Jon Roland 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As to letters of marque-how, exactly, did you do research without looking at reliable sources? If you did primary research, that's great! Wikipedia is not the place to first publish your research, but once it's published in peer-reviewed historical journals, it is absolutely reliable and suitable to cite as a source. Your contention of "property rights" is fallacious-all contributors agree to contribute under the GFDL whenever they make a submission, and that's clearly stated on the edit page. This means they specifically grant to everyone permission to edit their work. As to defamation, we have clear guidelines in place about that-and avoiding defamation is the exact reason we require sources, and are especially strict on requiring sources when a living person is involved! As to "neglect"-a private website is not required to list information on anyone or anything, and may delete information hosted on its servers entirely at will (unless paying customers are promised other terms, which is not the case here). Surely you're aware of this, as you do claim to be an attorney? As to self-publication, you're welcome to do that. On a privately-hosted website. On Myspace. On any website which will allow you to do so. In a self-published book. However else you can find. But this is not such a website, and confirmation in reliable sources, when publishing on Wikipedia, is not negotiable. Seraphimblade 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your first point above, I mainly work with primary sources. In many cases they are single copies of old documents that will never be seen by any but a few scholars until I scan, OCR, correct, and publish them on the constitution.org website. My reputation as a legal historian is largely based on that kind of work. Like any historian I will then typically analyze the content of that and other works and draw conclusions. That is what you would call original research that you maintain Wikipedia is not the place to publish, but there is an important difference: Whereas most other analyses discuss primary evidence, they typically do not present the evidence for immediate examination. I do. The reader can examine the same evidence I did and come to his own conclusions from it. However, I do bring one more thing to the table: I did that kind of analysis for literally thousands of other works, probably more than any scholar will ever be able to read, unless he starts early and doesn't waste much time over decades. That can produce insights that don't come out by reading a few passages lifted out of a text.

Consider the subject of Letters of Marque and Reprisal (it is important not to omit reprisal). Then I find a statement that letters of marque and reprisal may only be issued to private parties. Even my colleague, Doug Kmiec, testified to that effect before Congress. The problem is, that's wrong! As it happened, almost all the letters of marque and reprisal were issued to privateers, because in a world of monarchs who may declare war on their own authority, there is no need to issue them to officers of the Royal Navy. But there is nothing in the theory of the letter of marque and reprisal, a kind of warrant, that restricts the issuance of them to private parties, just as there is nothing in the theory of search and arrest warrants that restricts the issuance of them to law enforcement agents. (I once almost had a search warrant issued to me as a private citizen because the local sheriff didn't want to serve it on a prominent citizen.) But you won't find a pithy citation on that point. You get it from gaining a deep insight into law as the Founders understood it, but because they took the fundamentals for granted, never really explained in concise ways that we could cite today.

So my problem is, I've found an error, and a serious one, and I am the only expert available to refute it, based on my primary source research. It's not that my research is inaccessible to others. I have tried to make it all available online, but the insights are not expressed in quotable quips. It takes total immersion in the subject. I've done that, and so can anyone else, but I have done it and they are unlikely to. I can cite the authority for my position, but that is a huge body of material that cannot be reduced to a single, short passage, except by my finding about it.

Why is it a serious error? Because the issuance by Congress of letters of marque and reprisal was the one way Congress had to comply with the Constitution concerning the incursion into Afghanistan. Now, I grant that not many people today care about strict constitutional compliance, until it is violated against them, but it is my general conclusion from the study of history that strict constitutional compliance is one of the most important things in human affairs. That itself is not a position I can support with "reliable" sources, because anyone may cite other "reliable sources" that take the opposite position. Ultimately, it comes down to personal choice. But if someone who made one choice grabs the podium, and no one challenges him, his position can come to be seen, mistakenly, as some kind of irrefutable truth rather than as disputable and disputed.

On the legal points you make, I am familiar with them, but I also know that what is provided for in GFDL licenses and other accession contracts is for a civilized world that bears little resemblance to what actually happens in courts, where, as the old saying goes, "A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." There is a reason why Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones, in a talk to the Harvard Federalist Society in 2003, said that the "American legal system is corrupt beyond recognition". If some lawyer smells money you may find your GFDL resembling Madison's "parchment barrier". I fight that corruption every day. It is the reason I don't seek a bar card, because honest lawyers are not allowed to challenge corrupt judges and prosecutors.

It is not just contributors who may have a justiable interest in what is published on the site. Consider the revelation of sensitive information about someone else than the contributor. Information needed to steal his identity, for example. Or revelation of the location of a protected witness, or of a whistleblower for whom it is the government that is the threat. The possibilities for "when did he stop beating his wife" aspersions are endless. In the words of Cardinal Richelieu, "Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."

Now I'm not saying one has to make business or editorial decisions on the basis of that corruption, but don't be surprised if it rears up and bites you. "Know everything, believe nothing, and be ready for anything." (And hide your assets.) Jon Roland 07:09, 17 January 2007

What I got out of all that:

1. I shouldn't have to verify everything because it might be new stuff that only I know.
2. I shouldn't have to provide secondary sources because I'm gonna give you the primary sources for analysis.

Both of those fail WP:NOR. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing for special treatment of myself. In all of the above I have been arguing for equal treatment of everyone. I am not important. If I could have my work attributed to "anonymous" that would be fine with me. I once considered doing that, but it doesn't work. People demand to know who did the work, if only to tie the work together to a single author or editor. It is the work, not the worker, that matters. But I am also saying that you are not applying your own standards consistently or even-handedly, or in a way that gives the submitter a reasonable opportunity to respond to demands from editors. I have spent many hours responding to the demands of print editors for more cites, especially of law review articles, where editors seem to feel that one key cite is not enough, but want everything found in "shepardizing" the case, which can result in more footnotes than anyone who reads the article really wants, and cuts into the word limits for the article as a whole. We usually negotiate a compromise.

I have been taking a tour of many articles of interest to me, and I have not found a single article of any length in which everything is verified. Each of them, like the articles in any print encyclopedia, are a mixture of fact and opinion, some of that of professional grade and some of it not, with perhaps some cites that support some or many points, but not all of them. When I turn to the talk sessions involving changes to the articles, I do not find the discussants applying those standards consistently to themselves or one another, or exhibiting a level of subject-matter expertise that makes their comments a "peer review". I am familiar with the peer review standards of professional journals, and the lesser review standards of law review journals (3rd-year law students who have a lot to learn). My print editors don't even aspire to the standards you claim to uphold. They are content to look at the body of work of those they ask to submit articles, spot check their work, find what they examine to be reliable, and form the general opinion that the rest of the author's work is probably also reliable. That is a leap, given that print encyclopedias and journals can't be corrected as online publications can, but they do so in the recognition that corrections can be made in subsequent editions, or in the case of professional journals, that others will submit articles that challenge the findings of earlier ones. Many of my print article commissions are to correct articles written by others that have come under criticism.

You have also not responded to my questions. How do we resubmit articles to satisfy your demands when the article is blocked, as someone has done for the Constitution Society article? I see many other articles for other organizations in the field that are very similar to the version I last tried to submit. Indeed, mine was modeled on some of the others. None of the organizations I looked at had any third-party verifications of their notability. I do not see the same standards being applied to articles on organizations that you are applying to articles on individuals. Nor do I think that would be appropriate. It can't be numbers of voting members. That would probably exclude the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the only formal organizations for their parties with voting powers, organized as nonincorporated associations. Many important organizations are "private foundations" under IRS definitions, others are "public foundations" with self-appointing boards who have the only voting powers. A more reasonable way to assess notability, for individuals or organizations, would be to put up an article and count the numbers of page visits over some period of time, then give extra weight to some deemed notable by peers in their field. After all, 18th century legal philosophers are not going to get as many hits as rock stars, but those of us in that field can better assess their importance to the development of legal thought.Jon Roland 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, the solution here is pretty simple. Cite third-party reliable sources (scholarly legal journals, major media outlets) that have covered you and your work and no one here will contest their validity or notability. If you can do that, which ought to be a fairly simple task, it will be quite easy to get the articles in question restored. If you cannot cite such third-party sources, you have no argument, period.--chris.lawson 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Xavier Rhone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

He is getting more popular, and people need to know of him67.183.248.48 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The purpose of Wikipedia is not to document "up and comers", but to document individuals who have achieved a certain level of notability. If you have such evidence, please present it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. If people need to know of him, the implication is that nobody does know of him, thus meaning he doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, due to no reason for undeletion presented. "people need to know of him" is doubtful, and even if so isn't cause for an encyclopedia article: people need to know their cholesterol level and how much gas is in their tank, too, but that doesn't mean an encyclopedia is the place for such information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. "He is getting popular, and people need to know of him" - sounds like a self-contradictory nomination. If he is getting so popular, then wouldn't people already know of him? JIP | Talk 11:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Until people know of him, we don't have an article. We are not here to help things along. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A Doemain of Our Own (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Another speedy deleted webcomic by this admin Naconkantari (talk • contribs) under WP:CSD#A7. The article had undergone an AfD in 2005 and should have been nominated if the admin felt that it does not belong. The comic is published by Plan 9 Publishing and is a hosted on Keenspot. I move to overturn the deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Always, always, overturn anything which has survived an AfD. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per survived AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist on AFD - overturn since it survived an AfD, but relist because that AfD was nearly two years ago. It should be sent back there rather than speedied. --Coredesat 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid, in fact obvious, Articles-7. Nothing on WP:CSD says that they don't apply to articles that survived an AfD back when policy and practice were different and we were more lax about inclusion (especially with geek-friendly topics like webcomics). The previous AfD contained no arguments for inclusion, and any admin who understands policy (hopefully all of them) would have closed it as 'delete' nowadays, or have their close overturned here. We're talking about shoving an article onto AfD whose entire prose content was "A Doemain of Our Own is a webcomic by Susan Rankin, regarding the lives of an anthropomorphic deer and her friends". Sending that back to AfD because of some made-up bureaucratic process reason makes no sense. If you can write an actual article using reliable sources, nothing prevents you from doing so. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The made up bureaucratic process reason that a deletion is obviously controversial if it was kept before, yes. You can't just dismiss things by calling them bureaucratic process reasons. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• From CSD A7 "If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead" thus overturn and relist (then probably delete)--Doc^g 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, the CSD are clear that if it's been AFD'd before, you can't speedily delete it through A7. Proto::► 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, and a relist shouldn't be necessary as it meets WP:WEB anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: What part of WP:WEB does it meet, considering it makes no claims of notability and has no independent souces? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Not being able to see the article, I'm not sure what the sourcing situation was, but sourcing is not a reason for speedy deletion anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What medium is both well known and independent of the creators? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Keenspot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Keenspot is not in and of itself sufficient to acquire notability for all of its comics. This has been established in previous deletion discussions. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I disagree, and nothing can be "established in previous deletion discussions.". WP:WEB certainly doesn't reflect that, nor did a discussion on the talk page gain consensus for such an extension. As Keenspot is "a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" of the comic, assertions that a comic is hosted there should preclude any speedies. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I will concede you that, but not that it by definition meets WP:WEB. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
                • And we disagree with that. I'm basing my opinion on the guideline, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
              • If "nothing can be established in previous deletion discussions" it follows that the deletion discussion (two years ago) is irrelevant now and the article can be speedied as an A7. >Radiant< 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Apples and oranges. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • It strikes me that you're using WP:CCC to argue against any precedent you disagree with, but ignore it for precedents that you happen to like. Apart from this being a fallacious approach, WP:CCC does not at all mean that precedent is irrelevant, and neither does it say so on the page. >Radiant< 10:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The problem is that there have been editors that dispute the "well-known" status of Keenspot and the ability to produce verifiable information because of it. (I'm not going to name any names, you can take a look at the WT:WEB archives). ColourBurst 03:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this entire back-and-forth about WP:WEB is largely irrelevant; the article had survived an AfD and then was speedily deleted under A7, which specifically says that it shouldn't be used in such a case. Any argument about WP:WEB should be saved for the almost eventual AfD. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as it already went through Afd. Anyone is welcome to relist it if they want to, though I don't think that should be a direct outcome of this review. --- RockMFR 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as per EVula. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn as per WP:CSD#A7. The article has been AfD'd in the past, therfore it requires an AfD now. Lithorien 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Subsidairy Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|RfD)

This redirect pointed at Subsidiary Alliance and was deleted at WP:RFD. See the RfD log from 6 January 2007 for the discussion. Now, looking at the history of the Subsidiary Alliance article, someone obviously made the typo confirming that it is a plausible typo—in fact, someone also had made the typo Subsidairy allaince which still exists. So that refutes the delete suggestions of the nominator and two of the five editors in favour of deletion who based their opinion on the fact that it's an unlikely typo. The other three who moved to delete this article relied on the comment "Seeing as how the main article isn't goin got be hanging around, no need for the redirect." This is not only poor practise, but the target will likely be merged into subsidiary alliance which is a more developed article and is not nominated for deletion. In my eyes the delete arguements are not sufficient and I suggest recreation of this redirect with subsidiary alliance as its target. BigNate37_(T) 03:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, that RfD was absurd. We can't go around deleting redirects because an AfD is considered likely to delete the target. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Reasons given for deletion are complete crap. Even worse that many users repeated "per Wizardman" even though he gave an entirely invalid reason for deletion. It's obviously a likely typo. --- RockMFR 05:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I had to look at "Subsidairy" and "Subsidiary" a few times to spot the difference, which pretty much establishes it being a plausible typo in my mind. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• I merged the one-liner from Subsidiary Alliance to Subsidiary alliance, added two references and set the redirect there. Now if someone who knows how to transwiki can initiate it we can close this request. ~ trialsanderrors 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I have to agree, that RfD was bizarre. JuJube 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

David Beckham move to Los Angeles Galaxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Being on the main page is not a reason to speedy keep an AfD; it's not relevant. Closure should be overturned and either the AfD should be restarted or resumed. Rory096 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy procedural keep Yes it is. See WP:CSK Bwithh 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Consensus on the deletion of this article only applies to a former article under the name of "Carrion Fields". "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article was re-written specifically to address the problems that led to the deletion of the "Carrion Fields" article in 2005. Yet "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" was deleted for the same reasons as the "Carrion Fields" article was. The consensus reached in 2005 only applies to the "Carrion Fields" article, not to the "The Carrion Fields (MUD)" article. A request for prompt reinstatement is subsequently being made. 84.192.125.204 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It was originally deleted for lack of notability, which this new article does not assert. I'd like an admin to restore for the sake of seeing if G4 was valid, but A7 would have applied anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The article describes a multi-user dungeon which has been operating since January 1994, and which has had its code copied by several newer muds as well. Muds that lack notability do not last 13 years.  :-) It is a rather invalid assessment. 84.192.125.204 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when did longevity supply notability? I've been living for two years longer, and I'm not notable. My grandpa has been living for sixty years longer, and he still isn't notable. Longevity isn't even an assertion of notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when is an individual person a direct comparison to a free-to-play public mud that requires a solid fanbase to merit its continued operation? You also oddly make no mention of the second fact; that this mud has had its code copied on several occasions by newer muds. Why do muds which suppossedly are not notable get their code copied exactly? 84.192.125.204 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're using the same definition of "notable" I am. My definition is in WP:N, which says, paraphrased, "must have multiple independent sources discussing the topic". Excluding forums and blogs, you have 1, and that 1 is questionable. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am rather new to Wikipedia, am not very familiar with its guidelines, and have been welcomed by having hours of work arbitrarily deleted in my face without prior notice or explanation from anyone. But this is completely besides the point of course. Are you basically saying I first need to link to for example references from websites such a TopMudSites which discuss this particular mud and the impact it has made on the mudding community at large over the (many) years? 84.192.125.204 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite amazing to see how a new user is virtually treated as a type of criminal for merely trying to save hours worth of editing to an article he wrote in good faith for this website. I am definitely drawing a number of conclusions from this, and the majority of them are not positive. As it is, could the article at least be reinstated for a brief period to 'see if G4 is valid', so I can at least make a notepad copy of the content should I ever be able to meet these guidelines at some point in the future? Or, could you please copy the full content of The Carrion Fields (MUD) article's edit page in a notepad, and send this to arvidii@hotmail.com through attachment? I would hope that there actually exists at least one administrator on this entire website who is capable of showing a hint of a benign and helpful attitude towards a newcommer. 84.192.125.204 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion a MUD would have to be something pretty special to get an article, and while longevity is worth something, it's not enough by itself. If everything 13 years old got an article, we'd have one for any number of hot-dog stands, diners, and truck stops, not to mention one for every high-school student! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• I personally don't see how Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands is in any way more notable than one of the oldest still running muds on the internet such as The Carrion Fields, yet its article not only continues to exist but is in fact being protected by an administrator. I hope no conflict of interest is present there? 84.192.125.204 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is not protected, the request for a speedy deletion was declined by an admin. This does not preclude nomination at Articles for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Just to get this clear, I'm not 84.192.125.204(mind getting a nick?), however I totally agree with his point. Being the editor of the Achaea (MUD) for over a year now(feel free to check) and being generally aware of the situation, I cannot see any other reason for the deletion of the Carrion Fields article other than lack of understanding of the matter amoung the admins or somebody being crooked in here. Facts are: 1.) Achaea and Carrion are both MUDS. 2.) They are of the same age. 3.) They are both always in the top five of the TopMudSites(the only possible resource for a MUDs notability). 4.) The number of players online is in the same range for both MUDs. These four points are virtually what those MUDs can be described by. The big difference is that CarrionF is a MUD with is run for free, while Achaea is a commercial organisation which has the funds to pay for the advertisements. For an encyclopedia this should not make a difference.
• Now sunshines, if you want notability in shiny neon-lights go to a Robbie Williams concert. If you're speaking about a subset of a smaller unit, adjust your proportions. Example: Music - everybody listen to it, subset(Bob Marley or whoever) - a very large number of people need to listen to it. If you take a village of 50000 men with one band, it'll be notable there, however 50000 compared to 6 billion is a very small number. Now to MUDs. If you only have say 2 million people having a solid idea of what MUDs are, having 80 000 people knowing what Achaea or CF is, is more than enough to make it notable.
• CF is notable and personally I don't see how the article for the general idea of MUDs, which is by the way 100% useless to 99,9998% of this planet, is more significant than that of CF, which is also quite useless to the general population. People who play MUDs, a "significant" group, know CF as they know Achaea or any other "notable" MUD. People who don't play them are simply clueless on this matter. Now the guys deleting it were both clueless and ignorant of the regulations. Just as easily as that I can start deleting articles about the species of pinguins in the rainforest, cause they have no notability to me or any of my fellows. The individuals responsible for the deletion should have their admin status overlooked at once AND revert the removal process. Now, either you delete ALL articles about MUDs or you do us all a favour and place one of the most played text based games on net back into your article directory. ~~MaxGrin 23:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe people haven't seen these other articles. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith, anybody? The close must either have been crooked or due to stupidity, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with WP:V, WP:NOTABILITY or WP:RS, could it? Endorse close, no new arguments, just new attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak endorse deletion While the content of the articles is different, the relevant issues are not. The additional content in the new article does not include references to published sources that are independent and reliable. It consisted of detailed information about game features. Since it didn't address the prior reasons for deletion, I can endorse deletion. I wouldn't object to overturning and listing at AFD, but I expect that at AFD it would be deleted. GRBerry 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is a free encyclopedia which has the slogan “be useful” in its first lines. What do you need (technically, e.g. 5 admins voting or whatsoever?) for it to get re-posted? On a side note, Achaean article has been approved as notable by the admin User:Steel359 and has been removed from the deletion list. This makes WP:INN no applicible. PS: Can anyone please point at what the article actually looked like? ~~MaxGrin 07:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're misunderstanding how the speedy deletion system works; if an A7 was declined, it only means that the article includes a claim of notability, not that it was "approved as notable". Determining whether or not the claim of notability is valid under policy is what AfD is for. WarpstarRider 08:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, my apologies, seems like I was wrong on certain matters. The article is quite different from an encyclopaedia entry and probably deserved its end. Thanks everybody for your help and please excuse the trouble caused (deletions are not exactly my strongpoint). However, it seems that the reason for the deletion was the respectable article being an advert rather than lack of notability. It’s notable, but the commercial structure had to be removed. May I suggest undeletion and trimming down to major facts with citations? I believe this would be a reasonable solution to the problem. ~~MaxGrin 11:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ill Mitch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

NOTARIETY IN A NATIONAL MAGAZINE ESTABLISHED Jellonuts 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reinstate this page. He was reviewed in April, 2003 STUFF Magazine on Page 38. This establishes enough notariety.

• Note: This is actually about Ill Mitch which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch, then deleted twice more as recreations, the most recent being today. Metros232 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I understand that, but I have established sufficient notability so I do not understand why the latest page is being censored? Jellonuts 17:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, AfDed article was deleted 6 months ago, for different reasons than notability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This is a new article so whatever reasons there were for the old one are null. When it was made the author was not aware of previous deletion. I see no reason why this article is censored Jellonuts 17:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... yes... there is no good reason... that's why I said overturn. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Note:Sorry, I misunderstood and did not see you had said "overturn." Thanks
• Comment: It was only while nominating this for AFD that I noticed that it had a previous AFD. If this is overturned, I will AFD for nn reasons. Obviously as the person who deleted this for the third time, I vote keep deleted. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Feel free to do that, but I don't see why. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you want it deleted? Notability is established and I worked hard on it. The guy produces records, has songs on itunes, has been mentioned in Stuff Magazine, has high google, and has high hits on his web site. What else would you like in order to establish notability as an internet phenomenon? ?Jellonuts 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review isn't the place for such discussions, but fails WP:BIO (which specifies multiple independent sources). The CDs are not available on the popular websites I've checked [1]. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since when have independent artists been found on popular online stores?--69.140.240.105 21:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the proper place to discuss this then, I am new and I do not know? deletion review is not the place to discuss reasons for deletion or reinstatement? Where else is there? Also, check itunes, that is a pretty popular web site, so itunes, Stuff Magazine, google are three independant sources, right? Jellonuts 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why can't you at least do a temporary undelete since it was deleted without discussion? Restore it and go through the discussion process instead of deciding it for yourselfJellonuts 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Edit history restored. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The consensus seems to be that the article stays, so would an admin please restore it? 67.167.130.247 23:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, there is no such consensus. Endorse deletion, where is this national magazne source? There were no reliable sources in the most recent version of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Once again, the source is the international high circulation periodical "Stuff Magazine" April 2003 issue, page 38 where he is reviewed and acknowledged. Also, music is avaliable on itunes. Also, the artist is referenced on wikiquote. Also, internet phenomenon is evidenced by nearly 2 million web hits and google rankings. What more notability do you want me to provide to convince you that this should not have been deleted without fair discussion and valid reason? I would have gladly added the references to the original page, had I known that I should, but it was deleted without any request for notability reference or discussionJellonuts 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "Once again?" Where was this first brought up? And iTunes existence is not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, forget itunes, but Stuff Magazine is notable. Also, here is another article about him from "Bacon Magazine" http://www.frymybacon.com/articles/articles.php?articleID=422. Also, here is the article from Colorado Daily, the newspaper from Thursday, June 12, 2003 http://www.boingboing.net/2003/06/12/russian_rapper_ill_m.html Furthermore, he is mentioned in a song by independant artist U-Kru which was linked to on the article. What do you mean by "where was this first brought up?" It was brought up right here and on the deleters talk page becasue it was deleted without ever being brought up or discussed.Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Neither of those is a reliable source. Give us mainstream magazines, newspapers, MTV, something that's peer reviewed. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Are you seriously suggesting that Stuff Magazine is not a mainstream magazine. It is on every newstand and at every bookstore with high circulation in the U.S. and U.K. It is a sister magazine to Maxim Magazine. As for a newspaper, I also have also already given one of those, the Colorado Daily, from Thursday, June 12, 2003. I just don't understand what you are getting at, you are asking me for things I have already provided, and then calling them unreliable. I get the feeling that I am being held to an impossible standard to prove notability here. How can a newspaper and Stuff Magazine not be considered reliable independant sources? Here is a link to Stuff Magazine http://www.stuffmagazine.com/index.aspx Jellonuts 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, my Google search at '"ill mitch" -"illmitch.com" -myspace -wikipedia' returns 27,500, not 2 million. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I was referring to the artists web site http://www.illmitch.com/ that has 1977735 hits. Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This DRV has been open for a total of 7 hours and there's no pressing reason to speedy close this. Metros232 00:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
        • There was no pressing reason to speedy delete it without discussion eitherJellonuts 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Please familiarize yourself with WP:CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I apologise, but I am indeed a newbie and I am trying to learn as I go, so please forgive my ignorance. It would be a little more encouraging for new users if they were assisted in a polite way instead of having there work deleted with no discussion, and then having to defend themselves to seemingly inpatient and sometimes sarcastic experienced users. I did reading before I contributied, butyou can't expect a new user to know everything. I'm just trying to contribute a page for an internet phenomenon and I do not understand why it is deleted? Perhaps you could be so kind as to explain to me which of the criteria the article violated that caused it to be immediatley deleted, with no nomination or discussion because I read the page and I don't understand?Jellonuts 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
              • We get thousands of new articles a day, most of them not keepable. Realistically, it would be impossible to hold drawn-out discussions on all of them. That's why options like this exist to review decisions. Fan-1967 01:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
              • See G4 in the speedy deletion criteria. G4 is for recreated articles of previously deleted material which is what this was deleted as. Metros232 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
                • To quote G4 "Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject" It was not substantially identical at all and it was a new article on the same subject that, unlike the original deleted article judging from the original AfD discussion, conforms to wiki standards, so again, I ask, which policy did the article violate?Jellonuts 01:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Articles which fail WP:NOTABILITY, even if rewritten, still fail WP:NOTABILITY, and still fall under the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • But it does not fail notability criteria, I have provided sufficent references of notability.
• Very weak Overturn - inasmuch as this article is substantially different from the deleted one and has a news media mention, but honestly, I think it's going to be difficult to create a well-written, sourced article on this subject. You may want to work on it in your user space until it is ready ... but to be perfectly honest I have a hard time seeing an article on this topic ever surviving AFD. --BigDT 19:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the page and supplied all of the references and image tags. I am requesting one more time, after all this work, that the block be lifted so that I can replace the page with the new one. Then, if you don't like it you can nominate it for AfD and go through the discussion process rather than tyrannically deleting it without a discussion. I have satisfied the notability requirements, even if newspapers and national magazines are not good enough for YOU, they are good enough for wikipedia requirements and notability is specifically supposed to NOT be a subjective criteria. Please lift the block.Jellonuts 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did you update the page, so that others can review what you did? And please quit referring to proper deletion processes as "censorship". User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears Jellonuts has created the page on his user talk page, see User talk:Jellonuts. Metros232 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Metros. Having read that, I still have to say that no reliable sources have been provided. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • First, I don't believe it was a "proper deletion" because AfD was never done, and if it my mistakes had been brought to my attention I would have corrected them. Second, I had replied to your accusations that these sources are not reliable above and you never responded further. Please tell me specifically how these sources are not reliable, especially the newspaper and national entertainment magazine, and online magazine and see my comments under our previous conversation. Jellonuts 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Have you read WP:V and WP:RS yet? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes I have, have you? The sources are verifiable, and reliable. They meet all the criteria in WP:V and WP:RS It is obvious to me that nothing I could ever provide will change the minds that have already been made up. I tried to make a contribution in good faith, I have no alterior motives. I was just making an article about this internet celebrity rapper guy that I came across. I am apparently either very ignorant, or I am being held to an impossible standard. You people are very discouraging to a new contributor acting in good faith, it's a wonder anyone bothers using their time to contribute. I work on this page, then it gets deleted without ANY discussion. I talk to that ADM, who tells me to provide a source and s/he will replace it. I do this, and s/he ignores me. I come here to deletion review, and a few people agree. Those who do not request things like "mention in a magazine and a newspaper." I provide you with EXACTLY that, and then you tell me the very thing you requested in not good enough. I am told by one ADM to recreate the page in my user space, so I spend the time doing that, and then a different admin deletes things there because I am apparently not supposed to have images and whatnot in my user space. Why don't you assist people like me to improve their contributions rather than taking on an offensive to delete the contribution, and worse yet, drive the contributor away by fighting against them instead of helping them?

I am going to request one last time, since the 5 days are up, that this be unprotected so that I may restore the page and then it can go through the process of AfD if you so wish.Jellonuts 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - The request is faulty, as the requestor has too much of a vested interest in the topic; the account was inactive for a year, and all edits since reactivation on 15 November 2006 are related to this artist. Google brings up the artist's site, myspace, and a bunch of forums, none of which contribute to notability. There appear to be no other articles, and the artist has no entry on Allmusic. As the available sources I can find qualify as self-published, article fails notability. MSJapan 22:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you "self-publish" in Stuff Magazine, or the Colorado Daily Newspaper? You know what, I've spent too much of my time on this. I tried to contribute, and it is obvious neither I nor my contributions are wanted here. I am tired of being judged and wasting my time on an article that obviously nobody wants on their wikipedia. Judge me because I have spent all my time on THIS article lately? Well, my time is important and if I did not have to spend all my time fighting against people who would rather throw any technicallity they can at me rather than help me learn, then maybe I would have time to contribute to other articles. Do whatever you want! I'm frustrated and I'm done. I truly hope you treat future new users with fair intentions better than I've been treated. If you make us all feel unwelcome and drivien away, wikipedia will not work as it was intended. You lost an educated and well-intentioned contributor today, and for what? Is wikipedia better off now without this article? How? You may think so, but I think not. There was an entry here about a silly rapper guy who has a weird cult fan following, odd but noteable. Granted, not on MTV or Time Magazine, but among many people and among several independant, reliable, highly circulated sources. (I can't believe you don't consider Stuff Magazine a mainstream publication? You better delete Stuff's wiki article too becasue it is not notable, right?) Now, it is deleted and anyone who ever wanted to seek information about it on wikipedia is SOL, and I am discouraged and disappointed. Congratulations, you win, but the wikipedia project loses. Jellonuts 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Sullo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The other related articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susam Pal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seifert, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Security Foundation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toufeeq Hussain in this series have been closed as delete or are clearly going towards a delete. But this one was closed as "no consensus". I believe that closing admin User:Cbrown1023 failed to notice that none of the two users who voted keep had a valid argument. One of them cited "Desperate wish" as the reason to keep the article, the another one cited what he called "notable references" -- but I clearly pointed out that none of these references are notable. Out of four links provided, one says that he is mentor for Summer of Code projects, second mentions that he is one of the many volunteers for OSVDB, third mentions he is author of a web scanner tool, fourth one has just one sentence: "Nikto, by Chris Sullo, is based on the next generation LibWhisker library." Jyothisingh 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see much to establish notability. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ask your security folks what tools they use to make sure wikipedia.org is secure... I bet you they use Nikto as part of their kit. Yes, this is my article. No, I didn't write it. Have fun, whatever your decision is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csullo (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. It doesn't really matter what Wikipedia uses; Wikipedia has not yet reached the point that anything it uses becomes notable because of that. Keep reasons made no sense. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The four links provided in the AfD give no non-trivial published works where Sullo is the primary subject. Fails WP:BIO. BigNate37_(T) 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, closure was incorrect. Proto::► 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - A couple of comments in favor of keeping this article follow. The wikipedia criteria for biographical works include the following:

"Being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works"

Chris Sullo and Nikto are referenced in several computer security handbooks and scholarly works. Please refer to the following lists of works via Google or directly on cirt.net

In his 2006 list of top 100 network security tools, notable security expert Fyodor lists Nikto as #12.

Nikto is listed as #1 in the more defined class of web scanners. In 2003, Nikto was awarded #16.

While the entries listed above include Chris Sullo and his work as one of several sources of reference, this also establishes the criteria of "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"

"The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their [sic] specific field"

The following is evidence of Chris Sullo's contribution to the security industry:

• Chris Sullo, Nikto, and OSVDB are widely known and well regarded within the computer security industry. This is evidenced by the reference material listed earlier as well as mentions made at various computer security conferences.
• Chris Sullo is the published author to publicly released vulnerabilities in Trillian, Apache, Verity Ultraseek, cPanel,

Netgear routers, MySQL Eventum, Cyclades Alterpath ([1, 2, 3), and more.

• Chris Sullo is not just "one of the many volunteers" for OSVDB; he is a founder, board member, and project leader.
• A short list of jobs where Sullo's published work, Nikto, is listed as required or preferred areas of expertise for many jobs. Similarly, Nikto is often a topic of instruction in computer security classes.
• Sullo's published work, the Nikto database, is in use by several commercially available security products.

• As pointed out earlier, Chris Sullo is not the primary subject of these multiple non-trivial published works. Nikto Web Scanner has already got an article of its own, and it mentions that Chris Sullo is the author. That's fair enough, in my opinion. Jyothisingh 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist As a matter of rhetoric, the fairness argument is woefully weak. It has already been conceded that Chris Sullo was not the primary subject of the above referenced works, however that is not the sole guideline wikipedia has established for deletion and the entry did meet other criteria. While deletion may be fair in the opinion of many, the argument lacks adherence to the deletion guidelines. For one, fairness, is not a guideline. If it were, then there would be several other biographies that are ripe for deletion --- you know, in the interest of fairness ---- for the subjects of those biographies do not have non-trivial works solely written about them. I don't even disagree that it is a fair consequence, I just don't see where fairness is of relevance. Alternatively, one could modify the guidelines to include because it seems fair as a valid reason for deletion... or perhaps, modify the guidelines to state that should there be no evidence of non-trivial published works written solely in reference to the subject of the biography, the biography should be deleted in favor of the page referencing the contribution itself (in this case the Nikto web scanner). At this time, that is not a guideline, so this biography does not meet the criteria for deletion. Another reasonable course of action would be to reach out to other leaders and innovators in the security industry whose biographies are noted in wikipedia and consider their opinion as to whether or not the subject of this article is indeed notable and worthy of his own biography. Their opinions should be considered a stronger litmus test than those l who have little if any knowledge in the field. (JaneEleanor 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Mindstar Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

references available Requesting undeletion of the following articles
Mindstar Productions
Mindstar Aviation
Cinergy Motion Picture Production System
Cinergy MPPS
Cinergy Script Editor
Per the following note from an admin, sufficient references were provided, but weren't listed in the article at the time of deletion. The notice I received from the admin is listed below:

The references you gave are fine, and there are others. You may be able to get your article undeleted, take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review. For now, I created a temporary page under your userspace: *****. This shows the proper way of referencing. --ElectricEye (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC) IGuy 19:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a conflict of interest to me. Articles failed to assert notability (e.g. "The Cinergy Script Editor is a free Windows-based word processing software package that allows the user to write a screenplay in the most commonly accepted format."). Guy (Help!) 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conflict of interest?? It's a guideline, just like WP:AGF... --ElectricEye (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Guideline" doesn't mean "can be ignored whenever we feel like it". -- Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not ignoring anything. WP:AGF. There's no conflict of interest on my part. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from deleting admin: This DRV is very premature. I deleted a few articles on a CSD run, and ask for sources when someone contests said deletions. I then leave my computer to make dinner, and on my return find that someone has recommended a DRV. The first port of call for contested speedies should not be DRV. -- Steel 19:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If DRV is not the first port of call for contested speedies, then what is the first port of call. Please tell the new user here, User:IGuy, who wants help. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Presumably the deleting admin's talk page. --W.marsh 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Instruction creep. More important is a discussion about notability. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think anyone's suggesting requiring it... but it's just a more polite and often more productive way of going about it. I can file a formal complaint about a co-worker who bugs me, but a less confrontational and possibly better way of going about it is to just talk to them about the problem. --W.marsh 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Demonstrating the notability of Mindstar Productions is easy. Almost all of Cessna's aircraft are shipped with one of Mindstar's products: Garmin G1000.[2] --ElectricEye (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Slight clarification: Mindstar Productions is the publisher of Garmin G1000. --ElectricEye (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Information about the product does not indicate that the company satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. To warrant an article, rather than the simple mention as the manufacturer in Garmin G1000 that it has now, the company has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources. Uncle G 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • IGuy has some references on his talk page. --ElectricEye (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• In the midst of this discussion, someone presumably involved in this discussion has gone into the article for Garmin G1000 and tried to edit it to assert that Mindstar is the publisher of THE Garmin G1000, when in fact, Mindstar is the publisher of a SIMULATION of the Garmin G1000 for Microsoft Flight Simulator. If my postings here about the stated products are not worthy of Wikipedia in some way, that's fine, but now it appears someone had, on my behalf, edited the wiki for Garmin and asserts information about Mindstar that isn't accurate. The problem is becoming compounded. I have corrected the Garmin wiki to remove the incorrect information, and I will refrain from any further postings until we hear a final resolution to the discussion about my deleted postings. IGuy 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 07:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Cinergy MPPS as a valid R1. Userfy the remainder. I think one article meeting WP:CORP might be creatable out of this lot. That article should be written in accordance with the guidance at the essay WP:FORGET. GRBerry 22:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• how can I discuss what I've never seen? since this came direct from a speedy, there wasn't even a AfD I could have followed. Unless the editors above have had the authority to undelete and used it for their private viewing, on what basis are they discussing it?DGG 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

INAPPROPRIATELY_DELETED Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC) I believe the administrator steel359 acted innapropriately in using a speedy delete on this article on the basis of "blatant advertising". This page provides factual information on our company, and although the company is the subject of the article I do not believe it could by any stretch be categorised as "blatant advertising" (and would challenge anyone who believes this to indicate the specific reasons with reference to the text of the article--available here Internet Archive Link. I was shocked to see that the article was summarily deleted some months ago without our knowledge. The article had been reviewed by other admins (I even requested page protection at one point), which begs the question why if there was consensus the article was innapropriate this was not raised earlier. The admin in question could and should--if he actually believed the article was "blatant advertising" have posted on the discussion page and informed us. This would have led to the discussion being held in the open, for all to see. It took me quite a while to see why the page had been deleted--it was just gone. This behaviour betrays the key principles of openess and the freedom of information exchange on which Wikipedia was founded and which continues to make it special. I have posted on steel359's talk page to this effect, also requesting an apology for his conduct. I believe it would be wise to review the criteria for speedy deletion and that steel359's judgement and conduct ought to be carefully reviewed in light of the above. Jaybregman 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This is about ECourier, not Ecourier. ECourier redirects to Ecourier automatically, but admins can view the past history at Special:Undelete/ECourier. Metros232 02:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. What the heck? I see a test page, and a couple other things. Nothing about a company. And your tone does not help, Jay. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's just the point! I have made clearer the Internet Archive link but do you see how difficult it is (and frustrating) this is? The IA link is accurate as of March 2006. jaybregman
• Three things:

1. "Our company"
2. Excerpt from the article: "eCourier uses an intelligent dispatch and Fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate couriers through analySis of rEaL-time data including traFfic & demand patternS, weathER conditions and indiVidual courIer performaNce. A.I.B.A. is a promising example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks. In addition to dispatchinG deliveries within seconds eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocaTion to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed."
3. This is a contested speedy. Shouldn't be on DRV anyway.

• I am not going to entertain this any further. -- Steel 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. I understand, but that in itself should NOT be used as a reason to categorise the *content* as advertising. To do that one should only look at the *content*
2. Excerpt from the article: "eCourier uses an intelligent dispatch and Fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate couriers through analySis of rEaL-time data including traFfic & demand patternS, weathER conditions and indiVidual courIer performaNce.

Fact. See references at Times Article, Silicon.com, etc. A.I.B.A. is a promising example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks. See reference at Michael Trick's Operational Research Blog, from an Academic at CMU, see the post from 23 June. eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocaTion to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed." Included in Times article but refers to factual descriptions of the product.

Yes it is a contested speedy--if it should not be here where should it go? The article says to leave a message on your talk page which was done and to appeal here if refused, which is how I take your response. Do you really think "I am not going to entertain this any further" is appropriate when the topic of discussion is summarily deleting information without discussion?

• Endorse speedy deletion The article was written as an advertisement. It was therefore completely appropriate to delete it under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Given the references found in the most recent post, it probably is possible to write an article with a chance of surviving AFD. Best bet is for someone who knows nothing about the company to do so, in accordance with the guidance at Wikipedia:Amnesia test. The nominator here used the phrase "our company", so they need to read and take to heart Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is almost never a good idea for someone to write about their own company; Wikipedia is normally better off without any article on a company than with an article written by someone who has a conflict of interest. GRBerry 04:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and throw in my hat to say that the behavior of Jaybregman here is completely inappropriate. JuJube 07:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read the Conflict of Interest guidelines thoroughly and I think we all need to step back and remember a few points here. First, I don't believe I did write the original article, I just edited it (please could an admin check this and post). Second, the COI guidelines make very clear that although editing an article in which you have an interest should be avoided, it is not forbidden and if your interest is declared and the SUBSTANCE of your edits are fair, there is no problem. "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." Note my emphasis on the last sentence, these are from the guidelines themselves. What I don't think is right about this discussion is that people are inferring something about the content of an article (that it's not just advertisement, but blatant advertisement) SIMPLY from my declared status as an editor with some COI. That is not right and contrary to the COI policy. The two users who posted above have not indicated any specific content from the article which would characertise it as "blatant advertisement". If it is so blatant, could someone please indicate this with reference to the CONTENT of the article? I also note that the criteria for speedy deletion is not just advertisement (ANY article written on a company by anyone will by its very nature contain what can be seen as advertisements assuming it describes its products and services) but that it be "blatant". It's quite frustrating that no one will engage me in a substantive discussion here. Anyway, following on from GRBerry's comments, I suggest that the article be restored so references can be added carefully to each assertion. This is good practice anyway particularly in situations where COI is a declared issue. Comments on this can be recorded on the discussion page of the article and editors can modify as needed. Surely this is a better option than removing all discussion on this subject? I will post a version of this article Here Jaybregman 12:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The article has been reconstructed, edited, and detailed references have been added which include highly reputable sources such as The Economist, The Times, The Financial Times, Published Academic works (e.g. Proceedings of the ITS World Congress 2006) as well as comments from Academics. I considered adding a disclaimer but I was not sure if this was appropriate. I would ask that the article be restored, and that if any admins still believe the article to qualify as "blatant advertising" that they respond here with reference to the content of the article as to why they believe to be so (hopefully if this does happen the article can be further edited to ensure it meets quality standards).Jaybregman 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article has been deleted by someone (which I think was inappropriate as it is under discussion here) so I have reposted so that everyone has a chance to see the updated article. Could I again ask admins not to summarily delete the article but rather post any issues you have with the updated content here for discussion and consensus. Thank you. Jaybregman 09:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What you do in this case is ask an admin to restore the history. You don't just recreate it. JuJube 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry JuJube, I'll admit not an expert here. Could you (or someone) please restore the page as of yesterday so that we might hold more informed discussion on the new content? I don't see why it was necessary to delete the page whilst this discussion was still ongoing?Jaybregman 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of spam, close this due to egregious WP:COI on the part of the nominator. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, would you mind indicating with reference to the text why you feel the article is "spam"? I cannot see how you can reasonably believe this given the references, and if it is so obvious it shouldn't be a problem for you to justify. Likewise, "egregious WP:COI" is not a valid reason for deletion in and of itself--the only reasons text can be deleted are because the text itself fails to meet quality standards, the identity of the author notwithstanding, correct?Jaybregman 08:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read WP:COI yet? Guy (Help!) 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Every word! Guy, the essence of the guideline is that editing articles in which you have a COI should be avoided. It does NOT say it is expressly forbidden. Nor does it say that articles can be deleted *simply* because an editor declares COI. That's because the guideline is very well thought out, and state that although editors with a COI will be inclined to write biased or otherwise inappropriate content (which is why COI needs to be watched closely) the only way to judge whether content is appropriate or not is by looking at the CONTENT, not the CREATOR or EDITOR behind the content. I have posted the following salient quote direct from the policy above: ""All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material. WHO has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to." (my emphasis). So, the real question here is can anyone involved in this discussion point to content in the revised article which suggests it is "blatant advertising"? If so, they should post it here. That's the purpose of a deletion review--to review the *content* to be deleted--not simply to review the editors. The arguments of everyone who has endorsed deletion can be summed up simply: "Editor has declared COI, therefore article *must* be advertising / spam / bias, therefore should be deleted". That's logically corrupt. In order to make this argument work one would have to (and one should EASILY be able to if it is indeed the case) list one or more quotations from the article which put it into any of those categories. No one has done so--so the real question is--why not? Guy, please you have labelled it "spam"--can you justify this comment with reference to the content, which is the *only* reason a piece of text could be called "spam"? It's terrifying to think that under the standards which are implicit in the arguments of those who endorse deletion, any article in which an editor has a COI which is declared or discovered can be deleted without review, or the edits can be deleted without review, and this deletion can be justified. That seems highly contrary to the principles of truth through open discussion which pervade the site (indeed, it's contrary to the very guidelines you cite and ask if I have read).Jaybregman 14:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, I'll fill this one. I'm looking at the deleted revision of Ecourier from 17:50, 14 January 2007 (that's the one you started writing in the middle of the DRV):
          • • Sincere thanks for referring to the text. It makes me think we could have settled this outside a DRV if I hadn't overreacted (I apologise for this, by the way).Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
          • "Differing from the traditional hub-and-spoke distribution systems pioneered by <competitors' names here>"
            • This is covered in the Release 1.0 article which can be found here [3]. "With its simple architecture, the FedEx model reduced errors to well below 5 percent and created an industry where none had existed before...The new model we discuss here is different. Rather than simplify operations to make exceptions rare, the new P2P models de facto make every transaction an exception...Each courier pickup is a dynamic, real-time, semi-optimized event" (p4).
              

However, I think we can modify the sentence to be more neutral: eCourier has taken a different approach to logistics than previous companies such as FedEx (cite to first sentence of this quote and include quote in reference), rather than attempting to "simplify operations to make exceptions rare", the Peer to Peer model practiced by eCourier "de facto make[s] every transaction an exception...Each courier pickup is a dynamic, real-time, semi-optimized event" (add other cite and link to full article).
This is more powerful as it uses the text of the reference to make the point. It makes clear the difference between editor assertion and ideas of veritable third party sources. Do you agree? Is this chance acceptable?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • "eCourier [was] founded in 2003 by entrepreneurial Dartmouth College alumni Tom Allason and Jay Bregman to revolutionise the express delivery market."
            • I take it you are probably not disagreeing with the first part of the sentence (but please note in a later revision the word "entrepreneural" was removed). However, if you do, note cite here [4] from CNBC European Business magazine: "the two first met at Dartmouth University..." (please note the author erroneously calls Dartmouth a university, I'm sure there is more discussion on this at Dartmouth College.
              

Ok, so the second part of the sentence "to revolutionise the express delivery market". I see your point as to how this could be interpreted as non-neutral. I think it is more powerful to change it to
eCourier [was] founded in 2003 by Dartmouth College alumni Tom Allason and Jay Bregman. The company states it is "determined to revolutionsise the way a courier comapny looks after both its couriers and clients" (include cite to [5] which is already there). This way, it is clear what the company is asserting on its corporate site as its mission (c.f. "Google's mission statement is to 'organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" Google article, which includes link to corporate site). Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • "eCourier uses an intelligent despatch and fleet management system A.I.B.A. to match incoming bookings to the most appropriate bicycle, motorbike and van couriers through analysis of real-time data including traffic & demand patterns, weather conditions and individual courier performance."

I personally think the citations to this are sufficient. But again, it's more powerful to use the text of the citations in the decription, it has the added benefit of making the article more encyclopedic and eliminating the appearance of pushing unverified information. So, we can do this: eCourier developed and uses in its operations an intelligent despatch and fleet management system it calls A.I.B.A. The system "uses a detailed geographical model of its London operations, including predicted and actual traffic patterns, weather, package demand, real-time courier availability, and other data" (Release 1.0 article, p11) to "[match] jobs and couriers in real time, using its knowledge of where they are" (ibid). How does it work? "AIBA knows where all th eCouriers are, and it knows what they are carrying and how fast they are moving. This information is combined with the latest traffic and weather reports. The computer also compares the journey with previous patterns, allowing it to calculate the impact of a traffic jam, a thunderstorm, or just a busy Friday afternoon. It then uses this information to predict a travel time for the collection and delivery and allocates each new delviery to the most appropriate courier. The whole process takes milliseconds."(See Despatch Manager article [6]. Note I also could have used Release 1.0 for a more technical discussion of the inner-workings, but I wanted to keep it simple and vary the sources used).
Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • "A.I.B.A. is an example of how Operations Research can be applied to solve real-world bottlenecks."
            • I don't see the problem with the citation, but it's again stronger to change to:

A.I.B.A is a "great example of how an entreprenurial company can use Operations Research to gain tremendous competitive advantage". And add cite to Michael Trick's OR Blog (author is CMU academic. I also cited this above (have listed google cache here because main site is having issues, see 23 June post) [7]
See also [8] where The Economist notes "...an elaborate algorithm that is now at the heart of eCourier's business, in much the same way as a mathematical formula drives Google's search engine". Do you still have any issues with this sentence?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • "In addition, eCourier allows customers to track deliveries on a map in real-time as their couriers move from allocation to collection through to delivery and sends immediate proof of delivery emails the second a delivery has been completed."
            • Again, these are factual descriptions of the company's products and services. By its very nature any article on a company will include this (see again Google and c.f. "Google is well known for its web search service, which is a major factor of the company's success. It indexes billions of web pages so that users can search for the infomration they desire through the use of keywords and operators.") However, there is no real problem with a re-formulation:
              

eCourier's web site allows customers to "track their courier on a map in real-time, with [time] estimates for pickup and delivery." After the delivery is completed, "the client then receives an instant e-mail proof of delivery complete with digital signature of the signer." (cite to Despatch Manager article available here[9]) The company has set up a demo of its online tracking system here track deliveriesJaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • "By re-engineering the traditional business model the company has been able to capture market share very quickly and differentiate on both value-added offerings and service in an otherwise commoditised marketplace."
            • Ok, fair point, should be fleshed out individually. Suggested change
              

eCourier has grown substantially since it started operations in September 2004 with only four couriers: "After just 19 months of operations, eCourier is handling 15,000 deliveries per month, for some of London's largest investment banks, law firms, and retailers" FT ([10] with "85% of the company's bookings [made] over the internet". (The Economist, see cite above). Do you agree with this change?Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • So yes, it was very spammy. WP:COI sounds like a brilliant reason to stop you writing any more of this corporate drivel. -- Steel 14:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Not sure the histrionics are necessary, but in any case, looking forward to your comments on the revisions above.Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Quick extra: that's not *all* the spammy material in the article. I stopped reading about half way through because I already had enough examples. -- Steel 15:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No problem, if you feel there is more, post it so we can discuss. I hope you agree your "examples" have been replaced by text which is beyond reproach (or if you don't you will let us know with reference to the text). I think the crucial point this exchange proves is that the article is by no means unsalvagable, but more importantly this discussion on the text will lead to a much stronger article.Jaybregman 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Jaybregman. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion under G11, and I see some rather serious WP:COI issues here, as is usually the case when somebody is fighting tooth-and-nail to get an article kept. Perhaps a sourced article without any advertising tone will be created in the future by an uninvolved party, until then it's probably better to put this to rest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Livingston Airline Destinations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Vote was 10 of 16 to delete, should have been closed as no consensus especially knowing that this article from an obscure airline was going to be used to justify deleteing articles for major airlines. Votes for deletion did not consider the reasons why the articles exist. They were first created when this information became large relative to the size of the airline article. By splitting this data out, the parent article size becomes more manageable. The destinations are encyclopedic since they define the very nature of many airlines. The are easy to verify from any travel website, airport websites, government required notifications, government approvals and many other sources, so the votes citing WP:V should have been considered with less weight. It this vote is upheld, it may set a very interesting precedent. It would in effect support deletion of any type of destination list. That could lead to deletions in other areas. Vegaswikian 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I deleted and stand by it. Only five people wanted to keep; one gave a reason as precedent that other airlines have destination articles but s/he would endorse deleting if they all were; one basically gave WP:INTERESTING as a reason; one cited WP:ORG which doesn't even apply. A strong 10 vs. a weak 5 with the final person wanting to merge and redirect. (If folks want the deleted content to merge in, I'll supply it). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. "Slippery slope", while arguably a valid reason in an AfD, is most certainly not a valid reason in a DRV (since it isn't XfD round 2}, and AfD is not a vote, so vote counts are irrelevant. Especially with the aforementioned WP:ILIKEIT comments. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse delete, no satisfactory reason was given as to why such a list should be on Wikipedia in the first place. It seems more appropriate for Wikitravel, if nothing else. Axem Titanium 06:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - A satisfactory argument has to be made that the article should be deleted, and it wasn't really. Half of the nominator's statement was incorrect, as WP does have other such lists. Aside from that, it's interesting how wknight manipulates the numbers there. The counts were actually 10 delete, most of which made sense, a couple were weak; 5 keep, 4 of which were perfectly reasonable; and 1 merge, which is still a keep, since the content should remain. Moreschi has some interesting comments on his talk page indicating he supports deleting everything in sight, and an administrator went so far as threatening to block him over another deletion issue, so this diminishes the credibility of his comments. 10-6 (or, more like 9-5) is no consensus. DB (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It can be. Consensus is not determined by counting heads. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, consensus is not a vote. >Radiant< 10:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with anything? The argument is that there wasn't a real consensus. DB (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The argument is that there wasn't a consensus because the numerical count doesn't match the nominator's idea of what the numerical count should be. That's a red herring since consensus is not a vote. >Radiant< 09:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge. The fact that the mass listing of the airline destination lists seems headed for a "keep" indicates that this result is an anomoly. By deleting this article we lost valid and verifiable information about Livingston Airlines and that is a great pity. Information about where an airline carrier flies is present for just about all other airlines we have here and is highly relevant for coverage of the company. In regards to the arguments presented for deletion, all of them can be rebutted.

1. The list is not an indiscriminate collection of information because information on where an airline flies is relevant to the coverage and therefore encyclopedic.
2. Unless you are seriously claiming that the airline schedule is not a reliable way of determing where an airline flies (why on earth would an airline say they fly to a place if they don't?), I cannot see any way in which this article is unverifiable.
3. Newspapers frequently report about airlines coming and leaving their local airport, so notability should not be a major issue.
4. It is not a travel directory, but valid information about where an airline goes. The book I have on airlines (Modern :Commercial Aircraft) is paper and is therefore forced to say things like "Heavens Airlines flies to 43 destinations in North America, Europe and Africa", as an online reference we can do better and provide the full destination list.

At least two of the "delete"s presented no real argument for deletion, I will mention CyberAnth and Akihabara ("delete this along with some other articles" with no reasoning). Hence, I think AFD got this one badly wrong and this should be undeleted.

(The reason I am saying "merge" is that the airline in question here is small (a fleet of only six aircraft) and a destination list for an airline of that size can be reasonably put into the article.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks to WKnight's offer to undelete for merging purposes I have placed the list into the main Livingston Airlines article with some modifications due to updates. Can we call this discussion over now? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect As the content is now merged; we need a redirect for GFDL history. GRBerry 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore or delete based on the result of my mass AfD on destinations lists: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations, as per being covered by it. Consider that a relist if you wish, that is what it is in practice, I s'pose. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This motion is to unsalt only. As one of the key fictional elements of the television series Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, there is a high probability that this element can stand in it's own article so long as it is within WP:FICTIONs guidelines for article growth. Keeping this page salted would be much like salting Death Star or Starship Enterprise because previous versions of these articles did not meet Wikipedia guidelines. It the meantime, it can redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units with the other casualties of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

History See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 22 for the most recent deletion review of this page specifically. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6 for a deletion review of the mass AFD as a whole. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series for the AFD in which it was deleted. Review of the page log [11] shows that the page was salted because it was recreated three times in roughly 60 hours following the group deletion review and prior to the page specific deletion review. GRBerry 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse salt - There is no need to unsalt at present. The article should be created at User:TheFarix/ZGMF-X42S Destiny Gundam and then relisted at deletion review to see if it meets WP:FICTION RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  What argument is there to keep it salted? --Farix (Talk) 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  Unsalt - redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units and protect to stop recreation RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt per nom. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse salt Comparing this to Death Star or [[Starship Enterprise] is overstating the cultural importance of the subject. According to the logs, it's been deleted 5 times. It's got a high likelyhood of being re-created with the same type of article again. Ryan's solution is also acceptable to me. --Kunzite 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep protected - no objections to a protected redirect --Doc^g 01:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep protected I have no objection to a protected redirect, which since this has incoming links (and redirects) is better than protected deleted pages. This nomination offers no new information not considered in the prior deletion review. Should it be possible to write a new article that demonstrates notability, at this point that should be done on a user subpage and brought for review after the new article is created. GRBerry 04:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect protected per Ryan, sounds reasonable to me. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect protected per Mailer Diablo. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalt. At the very least it should contain a redirect to Cosmic Era Mobile Units. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Unsalted redirect per nom. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a protected redirect - suggest using the talk page of the redirect to try and build an article that is in line with policy (which thus far has not been achieved in 5 attempts). Proto::► 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep protected as a redirect if required, per above. Eusebeus 09:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This has been deleted several times as a hoax, and now locked from being re-created. It's real, there are sources verifying its existence, and it's notable (why would David Beckham be a well-known follower of it??). Also, it should go through AFD again. I have reliable sources that prove its notability and existence. Apoplexic Manager 20:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC) — Apoplexic Manager (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse deletion - are there any reliable, verifiable external sources of information about this ... umm ... philosophy? --BigDT 21:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - article's subject is noteworthy. --Highball15 21:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion Again, still, no change. Fan-1967 21:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - links to other AFDs in case anyone is interested - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briefsism (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Briefsism (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous men who wear briefs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cult of Briefsism, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Order of the Briefs. Umm ... yeah. Please contribute by writing useful articles - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. --BigDT 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Briefsism is notable: look at the amount of famous people who follow this parody religion: David Beckham, Hilary Duff to mention a few. It was not made up in school one day, and has existed since 1991 in Great Britain. This should really go through the deletion process again. I can assure you it's not a joke, briefsism does exist - there's enough sources on it on various websites, notably the London School of Economics website. OK, speech over. Please just put it back for deletion again, full history and whatnot. --Apoplexic Manager 21:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, unless someone provides me with an exact link to a reliable source that gives non-trivial coverage. I don't care about assertions that this site or another has it somewhere; I have spent more time than I should have researching this. And why would I believe that it's notable because all these people follow it without sources saying that they actually do? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

-I was not trying to use wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle in any way. I was just trying to explain my company to anyone that uses Wikipedia and happens to search for my company. I am sorry if this doesn't work with you, but I was just trying to be polite. If you won't let me edit the article, please at least make it unblocked so that any future article writers can contribute to the article. I will not add anymore contributions to Wikipedia if that helps and I will also not re-open the article. I am the owner of the company and I am trying to tell everyone about it. Please let me explain my company's information.

• Endorse deletion - please see WP:CORP for Wikipedia's notability standards for corporations. Please see also the deletion log for this page - [12] - where five different administrators have deleted it. Thank you. --BigDT 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - also see WP:COI for conflict of interest guidelines. In short, as a representative of the company, you are the last person who should create an article on it. -- Fan-1967 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. So, you admit that you're basically trying to use Wikipedia as a free advertising vehicle? ColourBurst 21:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse almost all deletions where the nomination for DRV says "I am the owner of X" or "We request". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per your own admitting that it's spam. JuJube 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM, articles shouldn't be created about your own company RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A message to the person who sent this article to deletion review: there's a rule that we don't bite the newbies, so I feel duty-bound to explain to you how this works. The subjects of Wikipedia articles need to be notable, independently verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view. Your company is not notable enough for our standards if you're the only person who wants to write about it. The significance of your company is not independently verifiable or written from a neutral point of view if you're the person writing about it. That's what we intend by "Conflict of Interest." I wish you success so that, one day, your company becomes notable and will then deserve inclusion here. Until then, feel free to edit articles elsewhere on the site. YechielMan 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Carissa and Josephine O'Meara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

AFD was closed less than 24 hours before it was started, which is unfair as I believe there are people who would have voted to keep it. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• You think? I don't. Endorse deletion. No substantive claim to notability. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion As Calton has remarked on similar AFD's (tempted to add a Calton's law next to Geogre's): babies are not actors; they are remarkably realistic props. Fan-1967 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote, and acting in a bit role in one film does not notability make. ColourBurst 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It doesn't matter how many people would have voted to keep it, they are obviously non-notable. And I doubt you could dredge up sources, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. DRV is about process, and actors simply do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. It is not "obvious" they are non-"notable," I'd in fact say the obvious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist I'm in agreement with Jeff. WP:SNOW is not a valid reason to endorse quick closure of AfDs. JuJube 01:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources is shown. Among child actors, the ones on whom we can write useful encycloapedia articles are in the minority, due to the brevity of their current career and the lack of interesting things to say about them. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion There is nothing notable about these child actors apart from they played, at a very young age, the character of Courtney Mitchell, and this fact is already well-documented in that article. I think some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders (of which I occasionally look in on) can be a little, err, over-enthusiastic about adding and editing articles. Stephenb (Talk) 12:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Regardless of the merits of the article, closing an AFD debate in slightly more than 22 hours, and without citing a Speedy criterion, appears out of process.Eludium-q36 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:SNOW. This won't survive an AfD, so there's no purpose to take it back to one. If the solution is forgone, there's no reason to waste time on the process. This isn't a legal procedure, it's guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Kesh 04:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Clearly fail guidelines. Relisting for a full AFD is a waste of time. Eusebeus 09:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Balloon fetishism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Undelete Balloon Fetishism. The lack of 'scholarly research' on a under researched subject should not be a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. The internet is full of commercial, public, and personal websites devoted to the topic of Balloon Fetishism. Here is several informative websites: http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/balloon.html http://www.answers.com/topic/balloon-fetishism

Here are numerous Balloon Fetish online communities (some straight and some gay):

http://balloonbuddies.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BoysBalloonsandCondoms3/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddymenlooners/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BalloonPlaytime/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/balloonbangingboys/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MenBustingBIGBalloons/?yguid=201617095 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/menwithballoons/?yguid=201617095 Sonicyouth1 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Yes it should be, because it's not enough for something to be true, it must be verifiable. And for verifiability, you need reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unanimous AfD. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Afd was run correctly, no new information regarding veriability RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD by the book. I can come up with a more reliable source than the above; for some reason or other which I can't remember, balloon fetishism was mentioned on (the last season of?) Room 101 (TV series), and a clip of a film shown. Doesn't change anything though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No reliable sources cited: see my comments in the original AFD debate, and I'm not certain the above links count as reliable sources. --SunStar Net^talk 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I know two ballon fetishists, and know of a few who gained notable fame. This is a real fettish. There is alot of proof its a real fettish, Google it, ask around, look at the links someone above appears to have provided.

Sven Co-op (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

This delete simply doesn't make sense Sven Co-op is one of the more popular mods for HL1, no more or less notable than any other. The AFD was a joke, "WP:SOFTWARE" is nothing more than a Proposed Guideline and the admin deleted without any kind of consensus. It was listed for a deletion review before, [[13]] where yet More good reasons for its survival were provided. Thedreamdied 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, if articles aren't allowed a second deletion review, I'm sorry, could you tell me what to do next? Thank you. Thedreamdied 14:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC))

Contact User:MarphyBlack, I think he has a copy of the page in his userspace somewhere. The problem with the article was that no sources or references were cited. I'm pretty sure however, that they can be. - hahnchen 16:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What hahnchen said. Talk to Marphy and help get the sources integrated into the article, then open up the DRV (or just talk to an admin because I'm pretty sure with the sources they'll be happy to move it back). It's not that DRV isn't allowed multiple times, but you haven't really mentioned any new information since then. Notability is not popularity. ColourBurst 16:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article was unsourced, but that doesnt make any of the information invalid or incorrect - anyone who has played the game knows that its fine. Why didn't the relevant editors simply tag it with an 'unsourced statements' tag and wait for someone to sort it out? Deleting it was unneccessary. Thedreamdied 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Because no one participating in the AFD could be bothered to find sources, or believed that none could be found. It's going to get deleted. If its a relatively fringe subject such as this, you're going to need some secondary sources for it to survive and AFD. - hahnchen 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion under G4 the new article is not substantialyl different because it didn't use any sources that are 1) independent, 2) reliable and 3) published. No new information here compared to the last Deletion review. GRBerry 04:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I was amazed at the fact this page was removed, they are possibly the most prominent band currently on the grindie scene and the NME AND Guardian (newspaper) love them. Mike Skinner from the Streets played them on Radio 1! Theyve worked with Bloc Party, Plan B and Klaxons! Hardly worthy of deletion--Acertainromance 13:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, relist maybe, how someone decided that was a valid speedy I have no idea. People don't seem to understand that A7 is not asserting notability, instead of just not having it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral (leaning towards overturn and list on AfD), please tell us what the actual articles from NME and Guardian are so we can determine whether or not A7 was correct (A7 usually means nothing except that it didn't assert WP:MUSIC). ColourBurst 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, now that I've seen the Guardian and NME "articles". The Guardian article is on myspace, not the band, only one paragraph on what the guitarist thinks myspace is doing to bands, nothing that says anything substantial about the band. NME article is a short blurb, which coupled with the lack of other sources means that A7 is probably justified. Wait till the band's broken out of myspace first. ColourBurst 21:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article said that the band has not yet released their first single, from which I (as the deleting admin) inferred that the band does not meet WP:MUSIC. This is the Guardian article that mentions them in passing. This is what I get on NME. Anyway, I usually don't have problems with people overturning my admin actions, so go right ahead if you feel like it. Kusma (討論) 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, they probably don't meet WP:MUSIC. But they might, which is why non-notability is explicitly not a speedy criterion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Their first single is out this month, there is a possibility that a lot of people will be discovering the band over the next few months and search it on wikipedia to find out info about them, isn't that what wikipedia is about? Finding information?--Acertainromance 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, information which is already sourced. Not information that you think will be sourced at some point in the future when reliable sources discover it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I would also like to add that the NME article was in the magazine, if I got a scan of that article would that be sourced as 'reliable'?--Acertainromance 22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh, I trust that the article exists. I also trust that it follows the lines ColourBurst said it did, which makes it useless for sourcing. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
            • So I should wait until other publications (such as Pitchfork) do reviews of their single then?--Acertainromance 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think so. It's possible there are reliable sources somewhere, but nobody seems to have them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll try and get in contact with the band or check their forum or something to see if I come accross anything else--Acertainromance 22:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Alright, found sources on burnburn.com, leedsmusicscene.org.uk, THIS IS FAKE DIY (which is pretty respected) and not one but TWO scans of TWO different NME articles both praising the band.

Edit: Also found out that they supported Metric (band) and as a result found a number of reviews on them including ones on BBC music.--Acertainromance 23:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice. If they hit it big, then there will be no reason not to have an article, but right now the opposite is true. JuJube 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• But the animated band Dethklok does not have a single or album out yet either, yet they are a big hit. If Hadouken is deleted, delete any mention of Dethklok to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HaruharaChroni (talk • contribs) 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Job for a Cowboy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

now almost mainstream Death band

This article has been deleted one year ago, because the band did not meet at the time the notability requirements of WP:BAND. It is not the case anymore now, and here are the reasons why I think it should be undeleted :

• over 200,000 views on their myspace and over 100,000 friends [14]
• they are now on a big independent record label : Metal Blade Records
• they will do a very big tour in Europe in March / April 2007 (Job for a Cowboy is a Death Metal band) (see [15] here), and in big venues in Europe (Trabendo in Paris, Laiterie in Strasbourg, etc...) Hervegirod 12:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Web hits <> notability. Will tour <> have toured. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, myspace <> reliable source. You must have had reviews in magazines if you're as good as you claim to be. ColourBurst 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, until someone comes up with reliable sources for something that meets WP:MUSIC. It's been through afd 3 times (here and here in addition to the one linked above), and deleted each time, and it's also been deleted a total of 27 times with different capitalizations. There's nothing said in the statement above that wasn't known in the latest afd. Please take the time to write a real article in your userspace before requesting undeletion, and preferably wait to see if their future tour will generate some press. Thanks. - Bobet 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist They need putting on, if you haven't heard of them by now, and are in to Death metal, then you don't really like death metal! Bobet, you want reliable sources... Official Website, their EP available on one of the biggest web stores, online album review just search google, there is there lyrics & everything. Here's there page with their record company [16] and look at who else is/was signed to them, many great bands including Cradle of Filth, As I Lay Dying, Lamb of God, Manowar amongst many more. Think about it, should a band signed to a considerably large record label be classed as 'not famous enough' just because a couple of people who think they know metal don't know who they are, I think not. THEY ARE BIG, AND IT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS NOT TO HAVE THEM ON WIKIPEDIA!!! Asics^Talk 17:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Big? As in about to tour? That's big? May the good lord preserve us, then, from small bands. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They have more than 60 dates on their current tour, from 13 January to April !! Hervegirod 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

] If they get put back on, there needs to be a "Criticism" section, as they are the butt of many a scenester's jokes, and wecamewithbrokenteeth has a song called "Job for a Brokeback"

• Endorse deletion, official websites are not independent, Amazon is not a source, and blogs and forums are not reliable. You must provide reliable sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist : myspace not reliable ? the band Arctic Monkeys became what they are now because of myspace for example. And about what is considered as a reliable source, the only important thing is to know if the band has enough notability. But OK. Here's a list of reviews of their last album Doom : sputnik music, metal coven, the music edge, metal-observer, Encyclopaedia Metallum, into-obscurity.com, absolute punk, decoy music, metal storm, the metal forge, blood chamber... and this is only some of the reviews, there are more of them, and also there are other sites for band biography, forums, and so on... So, I think there is enough reasons to undelete Hervegirod 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're wrong. It doesn't matter how notable something is if we have no good sources with which to write the article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Myspace not reliable. JuJube 01:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The number of views or friends is a fact, so this part must be reliable. Hervegirod 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Criterias for WP:BAND : has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works... (This criterion includes published works in all forms..) : a lot of reviews by independent well-known web-sites about metal seems to fall in this category (they are even mentioned on mtv; Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country : it is the case, see above (tour has begun now, and you can check at various independent websites, apart from their myspace site (for example here, or here). It is clear that they meet at least the central criteria + one additional criteria for listing. As for what to put in the article, the amount of reviews about the band proves that it is easy to write a good and lenghty article about them. If you don't think so, I regret to say that I think it is POV. Hervegirod 13:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, it's been in afd 3 times, and been repeatedly recreated with no indication of notability. While it might be possible to write a good article about it, that's never been done, so there really is nothing to undelete. Start an article in your userspace (eg. User:Hervegirod/Job for a Cowboy) and if it's good, it can be moved to the main namespace. Thanks. - Bobet 13:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The first draft is finished Hervegirod 15:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• One person mentioned they needed to have reviews in magazines to be "famous" well when the page was removed not long back, an IP user left a comment saying they had been in 2 big magazines see here Asics^Talk 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• actually it was a registered user Davard Asics^Talk 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/November 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The page was moved improperly. Instead of waiting for a sysop to delete to redirect, someone cut and pasted the page contents to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Vancouver/Archive/November 2006, destroying the page history -- Selmo ^(talk) 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the history (at the target article), don't think there's much else to see here. - Bobet 09:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This page had nothign wrong with it The Demented Cartoon Movie (2005, Brian Kendall) is a highly popular flash movie. The Wikipedia Article was full of information on the 30 minute flash based movie, incuding info from Brian Kendall himself. I was really sad to learn that it was taken down (possibly deleted), and that is why I am here. If an Admin can't undelete it completeley, I can understand tha,t but can one of you guys please give me a link to it? THANKS!

Avatarfan6666 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like it was deleted for being a sentence about nothing (a valid A1), and later as a redirect to something that didn't exist, also valid. Nothing seems to be stopping you from making an actual article on it at this point, unless there's a separate deletion not listed here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The main page seems to have been The Demented Cartoon Movie, I've fixed the links above accordingly. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion unless new evidence or other reasoning is provided to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was valid and delete arguments based on sound reasoning. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, AfD was valid and nothing's really changed since the last deletion review. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion easily fails WP:WEB and would never in a million years pass an AfD under our current verifiability standards. I suggest not nominating this again until reliable sources can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wild beasts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The page was deleted at AfD in November 2006, I accept that at the time, the band did not meet WP:MUSIC, but since then there have been several things which I feel now make the band notable. When their single was released, they were placed at number 17 in the independant music charts. They were also single of the week on BBC 6music and placed in circulation. The band have now signed with Domino Records which is a major record label (although I understand that this particular point may not matter for ascertaining notability) RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1. • Comment - a new proposed page can be viewed at User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Wild beasts, I have tried to show the band meet WP:MUSIC in it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist with new information. I suggest grabbing a source for the indie chart claim, that would more or less seal the deal if accurate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist additionally, direct citations for the "Critical acclaim" claims would give sufficient weight toward proving independent coverage. SkierRMH,08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• No objection to relisting, but #17 on the Indie charts is not much of a claim to fame and BBC6 is hardly a major station. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I've now sourced in the guardian review of the band, having a bit of trouble finding a site with the independant music chart archives on, it was on the BBC radio 1 website, however this particular page is not archived by them, I'll keep working on it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist if sources can be found for these new claims of notability. Sounds like they might pass WP:MUSIC now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - Guardian article and place on 6 Music playlist is sufficient to argue a claim per WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Jizzle me this (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Swift and unfair deletion of well-written article Wheresmydanish 23:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse swift and perfectly reaonsable deletion of unsourced article on a game patently made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article was well written. It was also original material, very creative, and not "notable" in the Wikipedia sense. Paul 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Two women operating ENIAC.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Useful, non-policy-violating fair use image. I can't find any record of its deletion--it seems just to have disappeared. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Robert K S 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment was moved to Commons and speedied under I8. However, along the way it changed from a JPEG to a GIF. Hence the understanble confusion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Case closed, then. Thanks. Robert K S 21:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|MfD)

Wikipedia:Esperanza was recently nominated for deletion on WP:MFD/EA. The results, which I agree was a good handling of consensus, stated that "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required. Esperanza is too big to be deleted without leaving many red-links and making newcomers wonder". The Messedrocker Solution said that "all the Esperanza pages (except Wikipedia:Esperanza itself) are blanked and made into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is replaced with a notice on how it's closed down. This way, the history is still around, but it is effectively deleted".

However, a majority of Esperanza's subpages were deleted by a few admins against consensus established on MfD. They removed the histories of the Esperanza subpages and replaced them with redirects. IMHO, this is a serious offense against what the Wikipedia community wanted to have done. Therefore, I request that all pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page.

I realize that no DRV is needed to request page undeletion. However, this situation is currently under debate, and I think that we need a wider opinion here. Many requests for undeletion on Wikipedia talk:Esperanza and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza have been met with opposition by those who were against the MfD results. Therefore, I will be using WP:IAR in order to ignore the rules on Wikipedia:Deletion review#History only undeletion and request the undeletion here. Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the status quo per community consensus is whatever the closing admin decided. So all unilateral actions after the closure amount to a challenge to the MfD decision and therefore a de facto nomination for review. Unless there is a consensus to overturn the MfD decision will be upheld. ~ trialsanderrors 17:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not challenging the MfD decision. I only posted this DRV to enforce the MfD decisions.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I know. I just clarified why you don't have to invoke IAR to request a review. ~ trialsanderrors 17:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse formally changing EA into an essay, but agree to request undeletion of history of pages in question. The admins in question should probably be notified of this DRV, btw. – Chacor 15:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Will do, Chacor--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and do whatever it is you said. That was what the closure was supposed to be. Anyone who hijacks this into a discussion about restoring the organization will be eaten by Grues, by the way, so don't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, do not restore histories. As decided in the MFD, some parts of Esperanza were to be deleted and salted, and there really is no point in reviving them. There have been a few minority efforts already to restore Esperanza, we shouldn't be indulging them and start the mess all over again. >Radiant< 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe you are referring to the Members and Governance pages. If those are to remain deleted per MfD decision, then so be it. But all of the other pages were not supposed to be deleted, per the Messedrocker Solution.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore the histories, that was the result of the AfD. A few people got a bit too trigger happy with their delete button here. --tjstrf talk 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Leave deleted, Esperanza is dead and buried now and I don't really see the point of bringing any part of it back, if only for the edit histories. --Cyde Weys 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As I have said before, the deletions were against MfD consensus. As tjstrf said above, some people abused their deletion rights. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Which pages do you want restored? --Cyde Weys 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As stated before on my request, I want all subpages under the Messedrocker Solution to be restored.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • By which I suppose you mean, all of them except those that relate to membership and governance, per the very same Messedrocker solution? >Radiant< 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • We can leave the coffee lounge history deleted as well, since it was under a different AfD. --tjstrf talk 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Well I guess we can revise the DRV request for all subpages covered by the MfD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse MfD result, restore histories of subpages There doesn't seem to be any reason to overturn the consensus found in the result. --ais523 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify my comment: Delete what the MfD closer said would be deleted, restore what the MfD closer said would be kept. --ais523 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion MfD has stated it should be deleted, and I agree too. No new reasoning given why this should be undeleted. --SunStar Net^talk 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're missing the point of the DRV. The DRV is seeking to restore the history of pages as called for by the closing admin but were deleted by other admins without regard to the closing admin's decision. – Chacor 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is the closing admin's decisions somehow more important than the decisions of other admins? You know, the ones who've been deleting these pages. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know, maybe because they actually reflect consensus? – Chacor 16:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The closing admins's decisions were regarded as a good compromise for the discussion on WP:MFD/EA. The decisions do not reflect Mailer Diablo's personal opinions, but the opinions of every Wikipedia who participated in the discussion. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep dead and buried--Doc^g 16:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind providing an strong arguement for that?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As per my MfD vote, there's no reason to do this again.--Doc^g 18:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • OK, I get it now - do whatever original closing indicated, and let's not waste any more time on Esperatza. Indeed speedy close this DRV, since the conclusion is obvious. However, I never want to hear an Esperezian argue for deleting anything in future 'to save server space'.--Doc^g 20:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, do not restore any pages whatsoever, and would someone mind telling me one circumstance if which they have needed to look at these blasted histories where they couldn't have simply looked at the MfDs? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul-discussions after the 1st MfD
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Editors' Forum-example of efforts to refore Coffee Lounge--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, so absolutely no point whatsoever then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you still remain blind to the consensus established on WP:MFD/EA to keep the histories. The Overhauls might be viewed in the future to see discussions regarding Esperanza's problems. The Editors' Forum can be used as an example of efforts to revive Esperanza after the 1st MfD. All of EA's subpages have historical value.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I dispute that that's what consensus was. But whatever, Mailer Diablo made a judgement call, and I'm fine with that. However, some admins decided to do their own thing and delete pages. Well, so what? Few people care - they just wanted Esperanza dead. So why push so hard to have the histories restored? What's the point? What good reason is there to look at them? For history? Who goes and looks at dead Wikipedian organisations? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Archaeologists in a few 100 years might be interested in Wikipedian way of life... I know that was a lame arguement, but the point is that history is important to Wikipedia. Why do we keep logs of XfD debates? Why do we archive our discussions? Why do we keep inactive Wikipedia project pages? Because they served a purpose in Wikipedia at one point in time.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And did Esperanza serve a purpose? No. So why pick over its remnants. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the early days of Esperanza, some former-members claimed that Esperanza did serve its purpose in 2005. In 2006, however, it began to decline. Future people studying Wikipedia might be interested in the community itself, and would be interested in studying Esperanza, including its community-building in 2005, decline in 2006, and non-existence in 2007.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no history restoration. There is no good reason to restore the page histories and there is no good reason to overturn the decision. My reading of the MfD decision was that pages were to be deleted and redirected (and they were). Let's just this unpleasantness fade from memory. The essay should be sufficient for anyone interested. alphachimp 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • alphachimp, your deletions violated MfD decisions to follow the Messedrocker Solution. Mailer Diablo specifically said "No deletion required."--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't like the thought that my deletions (and those of many other admins, although I appear to have been singled out) violated that decision. What part of "no deletion required" precludes deletion? My read of the decision (and that of the admins I queried on and off wiki) was that they should be deleted. Deleting the pages was a lot more difficult than, say, just salting and redirecting. If anything, the admins assisting in this tedious task should be commended for their good faith efforts, not hauled through a procedural quagmire. alphachimp 05:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You don't WP:OWN your deletions. You are responsible for them, but if they are overturned, please don't take personal offence. I am currently reviewing the deletion log, so don't worry about being singled out. A dispassionate, and objective record of what happened is needed. There are a lot of pages, I agree, but saying that deleting is more difficult than salting shows you don't understand salting. Salting is deletion followed by recreating the page as a protected warning. Possibly you meant blanking and redirecting, which can be done by anyone, not just an admin, but still probably involves more key presses than deletion. Carcharoth 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, so I got a term wrong. Delete and redirect (3 actions): Delete -> Create Redirect -> Protect; Redirect (2 actions): Create Redirect -> Protect. Those descriptions don't include clicks between, which would make deleting about 2x as much work. Again, the pages were only deleted after discussion both on and off wiki that validated the aforementioned action. I don't "worry" about being singled out. I know that I am the only admin (other than Mailer) involved in closing this MfD who has been contacted regarding this DRV. Let it be very clear: I did not delete pages without consultation. I did read the MfD, and there was no mention of the histories. We can sit here and debate this constantly, but this purely procedural nomination is ridiculous. If some admin wants to run through restoring histories, they're more than welcome to do so. alphachimp 17:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, if the phrase "deletion not required" appeared by itself, then it could technically be interpreted as saying "these pages don't need to be deleted, but someone can delete them if they really want to", but that's a very iffy call. However, look at the full sentence it appears in:

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required.

The Messedrocker solution, as it appears later in the MfD, quite clearly states that page histories are to be kept. I honestly don't see how that sentence is vague or unclear in any way. Regarding due process - the point about due process is that it's public. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a handful of people having a private chat, then deciding to change the result of an MfD as hotly contested as this one without informing anyone else. Wasn't the Esperanza council heavily criticized for having closed meetings just like that? As for you being singled out, I'm guessing Ed just picked your name cause it appeared several times in the deletion logs. If you'd be willing to contact the other admins you discussed this with, I'd like to hear their thoughts on the matter. Quack 688 18:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and redirect as per concensus on the MfD. This DRV is not here so we can argue about whether or not Esperanza should be deleted, we've had that discussion already. This discussion is to determine if the results of the previous discussion were carried out correctly, and they weren't. It doesn't matter if you disagree with what the MfD decided, the fact of the matter is that there was concensus on the MfD for the Messedrocker solution, there was not concensus for deletion. --Tango 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and redirect as directed by the MfD. If the "* for Deletion" process is to work at all, any consensus reached there must be respected. Vigilante action is not acceptable. ➥the Epopt 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and redirect. The concensus was for Esperanza to be deleted. The option of some individual programs to be retained was kept open as a possibility. Redirecting pages to the essay effectively deleted Esperanza, deleting subpage histories only serves to aggravate people when there's no harm in their existence. Any attempts to revive Esperanza itself can be reverted. Programs that serve the encyclopedia should get a chance to be run on their own. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore Histories. I wanted to dig through Esperanza's history today, but it's so evil that some admins had to break consensus to fit their own motive. -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t) 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
  • _{Heh, assume good faith, my friend. I see no reason to assume such a motive by the admins involved. -- Ned Scott 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Comment My mistake for treating this like other DRVs with endorse/delete summaries. --SunStar Net^talk 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore histories. I voted Delete in the MFD, but the eventual decision in the MFD was to redirect all Esperanza subpages while retaining their histories, and that decision should be properly enforced. TomTheHand 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Restore histories I see no problem with this, although I don't think it's a big deal either way. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{If the histories are restored, protect as redirect to WP:EA. If not, that's fine. Ral315 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore history, but maintain the current version as a protected redirect to WP:EA per Messedrocker's solution, which appeared to be more or less consensus, and was endorsed by the closing admin. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore histories as redirects per the MfD closure. BryanG^(talk) 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Reimplement MfD Closure Deciding what to do with a messy MfD is precisely the closing admins job, and the rest of us should help make that happen. It should have been blindingly obvious to anyone intentionally disregarding the close that there was a heck of a lot of discussion about this, and they couldn't claim a good faith belief that the consensus of the community would support them. So if they wanted something different done, they should have brought it back to MfD in a specific case. So either people were ingnorant of the MfD close, and thus we should return to the MfD close, or they were just plain wrong to ignore it, and we should return to the MfD close. GRBerry 20:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Whatever. I don't see tha value of the history, but I don't see the harm either. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• _{Restore history. Not good reason not to. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{*Honestly don't give a flipping....you know. I don't care. I really bloody don't care. It's clear to me now that the entire Esperanza MFD has spiraled into a time wasting, annoying, hate spewing battleground. I wash my hands of this. That's it, I'm done. I'm not wasting my time arguing all this post MFD shit. ESPERANZA HAS BEEN DELETED. Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. It will never, ever matter whether or not we have page histories preserved, I highly doubt that anyone cares. It's just going to lead the reorganization of Esperanza in all its corrupted glory. If it's ever recreated, I'll be on the front lines of the MFD, but until then, screw it. DoomsDay349 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

• 1. _{This is not a vote}
  3. _{The MfD decisions were violated. Technically, that's a call for another debate!}
  4. _{You cannot just show up on a discussion page and say you don't wish to participate. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't! This also brings up WP:ILIKEIT--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{Heh...fine then. Take the message away. Just proves my point more and more. God does Elara make so much sense now. Alternatively, take it as a neutral stance. Unless those aren't allowed now?DoomsDay349 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

_{In all fairness, Ed, WP:ILIKEIT is part of an essay, not a guideline or policy. I agree with your arguments here, but don't pull up ILIKEIT! -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)}

• _{Leave deleted per Cyde Ways. -- Earle Martin [^t/c] 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}
• Let the dead rest (ie Endorse) • No really. Zombies aren't that fun, and they try to eat your brains. On a more serious note, this is just continuing the very divisive and polarising events that Esperanza encouraged when it existed. This ghost still haunts Wikipedia. Let's excise it. Let's leave it be. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete histories - This was the consensus reached by the MfD discussion; a few admins should not have more say than the voice of the people. It does no harm whatsoever to leave the histories undeleted. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• And it does absolutely no harm to have them deleted either. "I like it" or "I want it this way" is not a compelling reason to overturn deletion. This is not a vote - it is an attempt to reach consensus. Please provide argumentation. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Cielomobile did provide arguementation for his opinion. He is correct in saying that the "admins should not have more say that the voice of the people". As stated by trialsanderrors above, any admin who deleted Esperanza subpages not relating to Esperanza's Governance and Membership, along with any user that endorses the deletions, is acting against and protesting community consensus. Consensus has already been reached on this matter on WP:MFD/EA--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Come now, Ed, I thought an experienced editor like you would know better. There are no binding descisions on Wikipedia except those passed by WP:OFFICE. Descisions can be overturn, consensus can change. And it looks to me like consensus definetely has changed. And honestly Ed, it looks like you're just out here with an axe to grind, and it doesn't help the credibility of your case. Attacking former Esperanza members who don't agree with? *shakes head* For shame, Ed. For shame. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Um, why are you focusing on Ed and not the issues at hand? My reading of this DRV indicates more people are endorsing the original MfDs decision to keep the histories. But the really annoying thing is that this shouldn't be an issue. Keeping the history of an active organisation that later closes down should be a no-brainer. Please address that. Carcharoth 18:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I already stated my opinion on that. I shouldn't have to repeat myself. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• And I shouldn't have to repeat myself either. Do you want to answer the question: "Why are you focusing on Ed and not the issues at hand?" - or do I have to quote what you said about Ed above? That sort of thing should be taken to his talk page, not raised here where it distracts from the issues we are trying to discuss. If you retract what you said, we can continue this discussion somewhere else. Carcharoth 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My rationale was quite simple—consensus was reached in the MfD to keep the histories, but that consensus was ignored by the admins. Also, WP:ILIKEIT is an essay, but WP:NPA is an official policy. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Honestly, I have to say I'm agreeing with DoomsDay349 here. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doomsday. All that's needed is the essay at Wikipedia:Esperanza explaining where it went, whether the rest of the pages are deleted, redirects, or protected redirects with history is really completely unimportant. See, as of now, no-one has even listed the pages that need to be undeleted. And a basic requirement for a request for undeletion would seem to me to be saying what you want undeleted. If they can't be bothered to find out what actually "needs" undeleting, damned if I know why the closing admins of this discussion should try to figure it out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Did you not see this link on the nomination above? It contains a full list of pages that need to be undeleted, if it hasn't happened yet.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You honestly believe that restoring every single one of those pages improves both the quality and the credibility of Wikipedia? DoomsDay349 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It could be proven useful by future researchers in a few thousand years... Anyway, that's not the point. The deleting admins ignored and disregarded the decisions established by community consensus. Their actions were taken unilaterally.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
        • So you're willing to detract from Wikipedia solely on the basis that the admins screwed up? DoomsDay349 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    A random sample indicates that a substantial number of the Esperanza subpages do not have any deleted history to undelete. Some do, but expecting a closing admin to go through every single page on what is four to five screens' worth of pages on my monitor (and I have a big monitor) looking for pages that might have had some history deleted, that might be of use to someone, then undelete them, is a total waste of time. No-one in this discussion has specified a single deleted edit that needs to be undeleted and made available to everyone. I've never seen a case for undeleting that was so clearly process wonkery, or in full, "overturn because I won't be the one doing the tedious process of overturning".

    Tell us what pages you want undeleted, of which you believe others would benefit from the content, and maybe they'll be considered and undeleted. This DRV as it stands strikes me as so unwieldy as to be pointless, and so large-scale that all beneficial action would be buried under a sea of wasted time. Speedy close without action. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 04:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. This entire thing seems to be process just for the sake of process. alphachimp 05:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    Alphachimp, your username popped up on numerous occasions as I combed through the deletion logs! I wonder why you had the guts to mass delete Esperanza subpages without consensus! Ah, well...it already happened.

    List of pages needing undeletion:

    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Slimline - I wish I knew what this page was for, since it was part of the already undeleted newsletter page. Unfortunately, the page was deleted and I have no idea what it was. bummer...
    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul and subpages - Contained discussions that took place immediately after the 1st MfD. Too bad future readers can't see the discussions and have an idea of what everyone thought of Esperanza!
    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Editors' Forum - Aftermath of Coffee Lounge conflicts. Surely people would want to find out how Esperanza members tried to reform the discussions, don't you think?
    • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign, Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redisign/Archive1 - I don't think it's a good idea to delete discussions.

    These pages weren't supposed to be deleted in the first place. Alphachimp: "This entire thing seems to be process just for the sake of process."? Since when was it just "process" to enforce community consensus?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gut's!? I was involved in the implementation of a complicated MfD discussion. Before I did anything, I consulted with and reviewed the actions of other administrators working to close the MfD. If you need access to any of those pages, I'd be more than willing to restore them for the duration of the time you need them. Such access is available to any editor. And no, it's not process to enforce consensus. It's process for the sake of process. This is a 37 kilobyte waste of effort. alphachimp 17:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So you claimed repeatedly that you contacted other admins on and off wiki...did you bother to contact non-admins who also participated in the discussion? Is it possible that one of the editors you talked might have shown the slightest objection to the page deletions? It would be nice if you could prove the fact that you discussed this on wiki. Off-wiki, however, should not be a suitable venue for discussions about that "complicated MfD discussion". How did you communicate? Did you use email? chatroom? IRC? telephone? conference call? physically meeting each other? Those forms of communications are not necessarily setting binding decisions, since:

1. Logs are not available, or might not be credible
2. No proof can be shown that the discussion took place
3. Only witnesses to the discussion are those who participated
4. The discussion doesn't dictate consensus, since the venue is off-wiki and available to a small population
   • unless it is an office action

Therefore, your so-called "consulting" other admins do not establish decisions on how to handle a discussion. If you were confused, you should have consulted the closing admin.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree that one does not need every page of Esperanza to know it's history, the deleted pages cited by Ed are very odd. Why were those pages deleted? If they are going to be protected redirects then what harm could the histories have? This DRV isn't wasting out time, the deletion of those pages are wasting our time. Correct a simple mistake, please. Why is this an issue? -- Ned Scott 07:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Overturn discussions per Ed. -- Selmo ^(talk) 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Might as well restore the histories. I don't see why not, and it might be useful for future wikigenerations to see what Esperanza actually did. Grandmasterka 09:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn-I think this is a very important part of Wikipedia. -- Punk Boi 8 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and redirect - firstly, I believe this was the consensus from reading the MfD, but secondly, it seems to be denying a key part of Wikipedia's social history to delete these pages in such a way that the history is invisible. It is only reasonable that the people who put in work to contribute to the development of these pages should be recognised, even if only in the history section of a defunct set of articles. This should only apply insofar as to enforce the original intention of the MfD consensus. Orderinchaos78 10:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore histories. Okay, there's two things going on here. First, some people are either attempting to defy the MfD, or mis-interpreting it. By that, I mean acting against the closing statement, without any discussion. Attempting to re-activate Esperanza is an example. So is deleting pages that were not supposed to be deleted. At this moment, all the pages should be in the exact state specified by the MfD.

Now, a discussion to change the result of an MfD, on the other hand, is perfectly fine. Some people have said that all the pages should be hard-deleted. Ed requested that "all pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page.". I agree with Ed. Why? As I said previously, in Wikipedia terms, Esperanza's pages are the "primary sources" about Esperanza, and any historian or encyclopedia writer should recognize the importance of primary sources. The MfD is a reflection of Esperanza, but it is not Esperanza. Similarly, the Esperanza essay is a secondary source. Esperanza has been closed down, but it is still a part of Wikipedia's history, warts and all, and it should not be denied, glorified, or swept under the rug. Let its history speak for itself. Quack 688 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Restore histories as specified in the original MfD closure. Commend the admins who tried to help carry out the MfD, but remind them to follow the closing decision of any XfD in future. If they had followed the closing decision, we wouldn't be having this discussion here. Carcharoth 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note that the WP:MfD page currently states: "Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." - this only refers to editors, but there is currently a discussion on the WP:MFD talk page where I intend to propose that this should apply to community areas and organisations as well. Something like: "Also note that even if an active organisation or project becomes inactive or is shut down, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors."

• Request full list of pages deleted - it's a simple request, isn't it? Please provide a list of all the Esperanza pages that were covered by this MfD. Yet, stunningly, the MfD failed to list them. To expand on this point, some of the Esperanza pages were not just: (a) blanked and redirected (the MfD solution); (b) deleted and recreated as a redirect (what this DRV is trying to get overturned and done correctly, per 'a'); (c) deleted and recreated as a protected 'salted' page (what the MfD decision stipulated for the memberships and governance pages, but the salted pages were then later deleted); but some pages were (d) outright deleted (these outright deletions should be covered by this DRV, even though they were not specifically mentioned). The Special:Prefixindex list of subpages that Ed provided above will not show these outright deleted pages. Consequently, I requested from the closing admin a list of all the pages that were deleted (I feel that all these pages should have been listed in full on the MfD itself, or on a subpage as the list is long, as once deleted it is difficult to find out what pages were deleted unless there is an actual list somewhere). The closing admin's response was: "I think trawling through the deletion log is the only viable method at the moment I can think of, but I don't expect the deletion period to stretch to over two to three days. (~ 5000-10000 records) - Mailer Diablo 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)" [17]. I may be able to do this list, but seriously, it shouldn't be so difficult to get a list of the pages deleted. Can I urge anyone doing an umbrella nomination in future to list all the pages being nominated (if there are hundreds, put the list on a subpage). If you don't have the time to make the list, ask for help in making the list (copying and pasting from the subpages listing is one way). If this is not done, it makes it so much harder to see what exactly was discussed and deleted. A list of blue and red links really helps. Go into the XfD archives, and you will see what I mean. Carcharoth 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

After checking the entire list of subpages, I provided a list a few paragraphs above, in response to Alphachimp.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, can I urge the deleting admins to not take offence and see this as reflecting on them, and that they not get defensive about this. It is simply correcting a simple mistake they made, a mistake that was pointed out at the time, but in the interests of letting things cool down, the appeal was deferred for a while (not the full month that was suggested, but hey). I agree with Ned Scott's comment above: "This DRV isn't wasting out time, the deletion of those pages are wasting our time. Correct a simple mistake, please. Why is this an issue?" Carcharoth 16:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an issue because once again you've decided to waste time. It will never matter if the page histories are there or not, and all this DRV will ever accomplish is wasting time. That, my friend, is the issue. DoomsDay349 17:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If the pages in question were not deleted, we wouldn't be here, would we? It's not our fault that other editors made a mistake over a delicate situation. Do you want to send the message in the future that procedures and consensus don't matter anymore? That is the message that we're trying to send. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Page list created - further to my request above and elsewhere for a full list of all the pages deleted, and advice that such a list could be created by looking through the deletion log, I have created User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review. Please note: "It is currently in my userspace, but when it is ready, I propose to move it to an appropriate subpage of the second MfD". Looking at the list, there are many blue links (which could be salted pages or later restorations and redirects), plus many red links (deleted pages that should be under the purview of this deletion review). Please comment on the format/usefulnessof the page at User talk:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review. Any specific deletion discussion should remain here. Carcharoth 17:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My initial thought on looking through the list is that deletions and redirects were carried out inconsistently. Lots have been restored, but the whole carrying out of the result of the MfD seems to lack methodical care and attention to detail, with the admins involved doing different stuff according to how they interpreted the MfD and the closing decision. Further analysis should make things clearer. Carcharoth 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Overturn -Overturn deletion and restore all delete content. Geo. 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Restore as called for by Ed. Geo. 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo, we're all aware of your secret agenda with Zach Crimsonwolf, and it is not in any way appreciated. The consensus, despite any details, was to delete. Deletion reviews are made for wrongful deletes, and not to overturn decisions. Esperanza is not coming back. Deal with it. DoomsDay349 23:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo's agenda is hardly secret, Doomsday, splashed as it is all over his talkpage, as well as Zachary Crimsonwolf, Why1991, and Culverin's. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By secret I meant the attempt to make it secret. To my knowledge it was never made known publicly on an independent page. DoomsDay349 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DoomsDay, deletion reviews can also be made to overturn decisions on a debate, according to WP:DRV. Geo, I would like to remind you that if you want to restore Esperanza, you have to file a seperate DRV. This is not the discussion for total restoration. Be warned, however, that the chances of overturning consensus on WP:MFD/EA are very slim.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not realize that. I have changed my vote accordingly. Geo. 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, fix any glaring problems. Please could all commentator please re-acwquaint themselves with Mailer Diablo's close: "This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. " Many pages which Carcharoth's page note are election pages and what have you, and have been salted (many by me), and other admins have changed some of the salts to redirects or blank deletions. As far as I care, there's no difference for these election pages. There's a big fuss being made here that admins did what they want over the consensus and close by Mailer - this is nonsense, and everyone needs to assume good faith and take a look at the close again, and try contacting the admins who performed the salts (etc) which might need undoing. DRV is the wrong way to go about this, as a group of admins will again pounce on the result and fix anything that needs fixing, and doubtless someone will disagree and we'll have another review. Martinp23 23:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That list I made was primarily to give substance to the discussion. Could you, in all honesty, hand on heart, have said: x number of pages were deleted; I deleted y of them, here is a list of all the pages, if I hadn't made the list? I agree that the election and governance pages were supposed to be salted, but many of them weren't. Cyde even deleted a salted page, for some unknown reason. It had already been deleted. Quite why he had to delete the salted page is a mystery. Carcharoth 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No - and I'm truly glad that you've made this list, so that we can easily fix and mistakes which were made by the deleting admins (like those deletions by Cyde, which confused me too) Martinp23 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Once I realized that some of Esperanza's subpages were deleted, I immediately put it up for discussion and requested them to be undeleted. My request, however, was met with opposition, so I posted this DRV. We need to send the message that actions taken unilaterally against consensus will not be regarded as acceptable to the Wikipedia community. This debate isn't just about the histories of Esperanza's subpages; it's about the principle of consensus! If the consensus changes, then that's fine, but as far as I'm concerned, the consensus was to keep the histories of Esperanza.

Also, you can't just assume that another DRV will be posted after consensus here is established. As long as the closing admins establish unbiased consensus and act on it correctly, then we have nothing to worry about. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the phrase you use "actions taken unilaterally against consensus" to be in dire contravention of AGF. I'm sure that the deleting admins were all acting to the best of their ability, interpreting the close as well as they could, and making inevitable mistakes (yes, admins aren't infallible). It is unfair to attack the integrity of these admins in this way, and Carcharoth's analysis of the deletion period can help us to resolve these issues properly, as I'm sure everyone is eager to do. For my part, I salted a number of the governanace/election pages, as mandated by the MfD close, and I was careful to do it correctly (though I suspect I will have made some mistakes - everyone does!). The admins handling the deletion/Messedrockerification or Esp had a lot of work to do, and deserve to be cut a bit of slack from these accusations. Martinp23 15:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I really doubt any of us contributing our time to closing the MfD were attempting to WP:IAR in deleting the pages. Please stop the unreasonable and consistent attacks on those involved. I strongly doubt our motives are any different than yours. alphachimp 22:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• For Inclusionisim! All pages under Wikipedia:Esperanza history be restored, maintaining the redirects to the main Esperanza page, which would contain their original content for reference and so that we may better learn for mistakes of the past. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Regardless of the social stigma this could produce, Esperanza should be restored So users can be able to look back to the days when wikpedia wasn't just about robotic, emotionless editing and was a community in the day when deletionist didn't rule Wikipedia. Culverin? ^Talk 09:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Culverin, we are also well aware of your plotting with Geo and ZCW. You understand how that destroys your credibility? You just want Esperanza to come back because you enjoy how it made you feel important and gave you a place to chat. If you can honestly present good arguments and believe you can overturn the massive consensus in the second MFD, then by all means, create a new DVR to discuss it. DoomsDay349 17:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I think he meant "Overturn deletions", which is what this DRV is discussing. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • He says "overturn, restore Esperanza" so we can go back to day when we aren't robotic deletionists. Last I checked, Culverin, I wasn't a robot, and just because someone is a deletionist doesn't make them wrong. You're kinda bashing everything I stand for with your message. But hey, if I was wrong, sorry. But you were involved in the Esperanza restoration secret project, you know. DoomsDay349 19:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion, do not restore histories. per Radiant, per consensus, per personal opinion. ... aa:talk 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse original MfD decision and Undelete/redirect subpages, since this is what was decided. The original solution was a good compromise, and there's no need to try to wipe Esperanza out of history because it was overbureaucratic and didn't serve its purpose. Personally I'd rather that things like the charter and FAQ were redirected, not deleted, but I wouldn't like to argue with the original MfD. I rather doubt that anyone plans to use any of these pages to restart Esperanza, and such efforts could be justifiably deleted if they did. -- Mithent 10:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion; restore Histories - Esperanza was deleted for a reason; it went against our core beliefs as Wikipedians in that it was unnecessarily hierarchical and nothing but a popularity contest. However, the deletion of subpages was against the clear community concensus, as communicated in Esperanza's MfD Debate and therefore I suggest restoring the history for historical and archive purposes. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C] 13:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)}

^{I'd agree with this. The deletion of subpages was against the clear community concensus, restore and protect the subpages. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)}

• Restore page histories per the result of the debate which included deletion not required. Wodup 02:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore histories and protect redirects Sheesh, aside from consensus, am I the only person who thumbs through histories? Restore them, for the sake of us non-admins who would like to become more acquainted with a posthumous program that rocked the encyclopedia. Gah! We should have had a dozen different MfDs for such a thing, what a messy discussion and consensus. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Do what the consensus says. Okay, so I struck out my old statement and am putting a new one here, cause if I had done it there it would have gotten seven kinds of confusing. I'm sorry about the statement; Esperanza's MFD has me very frustrated. I have adopted the enlightened stance of not giving a fuck, and everything is much simpler now. Please accept my humblest apologies. But yes, let's just do what the consensus stated and move on with this. DoomsDay349 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it. My mind is in a state of disturbance over this, although it might also pile onto my exams, my social life, and my family life...but hey! Let's move on and continue what we're doing.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 05:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Word to that. I have big articles to write... DoomsDay349 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore and redirect per the consensus at MfD. Consensus of hundreds of editors cannot be overruled just because a few sysops don't like something. --- RockMFR 05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  That is absolutely not what anyone was thinking. I'd appreciate if you retract that statement. alphachimp 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Quite frankly, I can't possibly assume every deletion was the result of a good faith interpretation of Mailer Diablo's closure. At the very least, there were people who read the first four paragraphs of the closure and conveniently ignored the "Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages" paragraph. It's troubling that some people have made comments along the lines of "KILL IT! KILL IT! BURN BURN BURN RARGH!" There were multiple pages in which the Messedrocker solution was applied at first and then later on the pages were deleted and salted (by you yourself, alphachimp). Why was this done? If you want an example, check out the history and logs of Wikipedia:Esperanza/Images. Was there a reason for the deletion of that page after it had been redirected? --- RockMFR 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  That was the impression that many users received when Esperanza's subpages were massively deleted against consensus. RockMFR has everyright to express an opinion per the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (Wikipedia is located in Florida, if I recall correctly).--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ed, it's ridiculous to make a US Constitution-based argument. I'm responding to his comment about "a few sysops not liking something", which you did not respond to. Please start assuming good faith. alphachimp 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I think that what alphachimp was saying was a response to the attack on the involved admins who "didn't like osmething" - this is a gross assumption of bad faith, and this sort of attitude here is getting out of hand. Ed, please note that the admins involved were only acting upon the close by Mailer Diablo, which had one or two "grey areas", and we did our best to follow the consensus with the deletions which took place (and the close indicated that there was a consensus for deletion of some pages, so alphachimp's comment re: the consensus is correct). Ed - the admins involved should (if I can blow my own horn) be commended for their work, and not be admonished in the ways we see here. We did our best to act upon the consensus, and collaborated with editors and admins, to make sure everything got covered. There may have been some mistakes in the deletions, but efforts will always be made to correct them, making this DRV unneccesary. It presents an uninformed view and the confusing majority seems to advocate the undeletion of everything (which, does not compute with your DRV statement about out of process deletions being the reason for this DRV) - to overthrow MD's close which permitted the deletion of some pages. As a result of this lack of detail and onfo made public, this DRV is descending into a farce. Martinp23 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  I would also like to ask Ed to calm down and start assuming good faith and behaving civilly - there's no need for some of the comments you've produced. Martinp23 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  alphachimp, if I remember correctly, you said that you consulted with admins on and off-wiki. Let my repost my earlier comments that you obviously had no interest in replying to:

So you claimed repeatedly that you contacted other admins on and off wiki...did you bother to contact non-admins who also participated in the discussion? Is it possible that one of the editors you talked might have shown the slightest objection to the page deletions? It would be nice if you could prove the fact that you discussed this on wiki. Off-wiki, however, should not be a suitable venue for discussions about that "complicated MfD discussion". How did you communicate? Did you use email? chatroom? IRC? telephone? conference call? physically meeting each other? Those forms of communications are not necessarily setting binding decisions, since:

1. Logs are not available, or might not be credible
2. No proof can be shown that the discussion took place
3. Only witnesses to the discussion are those who participated
4. The discussion doesn't dictate consensus, since the venue is off-wiki and available to a small population
   • unless it is an office action

Therefore, your so-called "consulting" other admins do not establish decisions on how to handle a discussion. If you were confused, you should have consulted the closing admin.

• Although the situation now has changed, I still beleive that the deleting admins poorly took action in taking care of a complicated situation.

  Martinp23, I have every right to post this DRV. When I requested that the page histories be undeleted both on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza and WT:EA, my request has been met with opposition, and most of that opposition provided claims that "the histories aren't useful" (not a useful arguement). My arguements, however, are supported by the consensus established on WP:MFD/EA. I realize that consensus might change, but I wanted to post this DRV in order to get a wider opinion on the situation.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Anyone has a right to file a DRV - I dispute the neccesity of a DRV, and I'm outraged that the part of the close which reqeusts salting has not been mentioned by the nominator, which will produce a convulted result to this DRV Martinp23 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Ed, we engaged on Wikipedia after the close and we obviously have differing opinions on how the close was to happen. This was a hard close to read, and I don't see any value in asserting admins acted in bad faith. As to the DRV, I think it opens from a flawed position, in that it quotes selectively and isn't supported by the close. Also, I think it would be better to have a list of the pages that require review, rather than consider the whole deletion debate. Can we all calm it down a bit. This close took a lot of work by a lot of admins. Let's at least make the assumption we were all doing our best. Steve block Talk 20:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  How is it possible that the phrase "deletion not required" in the MfD close cannot be fully understood? It's in English, it's on the English Wikipedia, and every fluent English speaker in the world could understand that.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Because it wasn't if reference to the governance pages etc, where salting was the result. That quote is taken completely out of context. Please, start assuming good faith Ed, and realise that not all admins are out against the consensus, and that in such an MfD results, cockups in understanding will certainly occur - it's no one's fault - it just happens. Martinp23 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just stop the madness - if someone really wants to see a particular page, restore it behind a protected redirect. If nobody cares, then don't waste time on it. --BigDT 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - Esperanza in Spanish means "hope", and by keeping this deleted, Wikipedia effectively has "no hope". Esperanza's core fundamentals represent those of Wikipedia's, including the formation of a community, the formation of a safe haven for the public, and as an orphanage for those new to Wikipedia. Esperanza will rise again, and the elitist deletionists can't do anything about it. *sticks tongue out*--128.227.27.105 13:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

• Request for clarification: Could people who are endorsing the mfd close and requesting restoration of the histories of some pages please clarify how that is in keeping with endorsing the closure. The following passage from the closure seems at odds with that viewpoint:

This means as from now, the membership, council and associated pages are to immediately go. They will be salted. This is a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a similiar fate as Esperanza.

• Is this debate based on a misunderstanding of what was meant by "are to immediately go"? Steve block Talk 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. I agree that the situation may not be as bad as the DRV statement makes it appear. When I looked at the lists here, I realised that a lot of them are indeed governance-related pages. I am much happier now that the list has been produced (though less happy that I had to do it and that the admins involved didn't list at the MfD the pages they had deleted). I suggest that the DRV here be closed with no result, but without prejudice to a future DRV that will present a detailed list of precisely which pages should be repaired to conform to the MfD. Even simpler would be if the five admins who did most of the tidying up work would agree to review such a future list and agree to any more tidying up that may be needed. Carcharoth 21:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to review the list, but like I say, I haven't as yet finished processing my end of the mfd. I'm also unsure which of my deletions need reviewing. I've seen accusations that I deleted the collaboration process when I kept all relevant history, it's a pity the deletion edit summaries allow more text to be added that actually display, granted, but I did attempt to add all details on where stuff went. Now I'd suggest that this DRV is opened on a flawed premise since it is quoting selectively and that it alleges bad faith. I've outlined below why I believe we were entitled to act interpretively. Steve block Talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

DRV's usually last 5 days, but I would be happy to submit a more detailed request.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I would ever agree to help with Esperanza related cleanup again. This entire DRV makes it painfully obvious just why Esperanza should remain deleted. alphachimp 22:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this so personally. I removed that piece of text because I felt it needed more explanation, and I didn't have time to explain at the time. I'll quote my edit summary: "remove admin stats - on second thoughts, this is not helpful until properly explained". My thought was that, without proper explanation, some of the admins listed there might take offence (though they really shouldn't), so I removed it. Please note that I removed it 6 minutes after it had appeared when I created the page, and 12 minutes before I even posted the link to the page at the DRV. My aim with compiling that list was (a) to get a list of all the pages being discussed in the MfDs and the DRV - the first time such a list has been produced;(b) to identify the admins involved so that this can be discussed with them - previously it has not been clear which admins other than the closing admin were involved, and hence should be approached about this; (c) counting the number of pages helped make it clear to me that 5 admins did the bulk of the work (for which they should be commended). If I had asked at the beginning of the DRV for a list of all the pages deleted and which admins I should contact, would you have been able to tell us? That is a big part of what I am trying to do here, make it clearer precisely which pages were deleted. The rest (details of actions taken by admins) follows on from that basic information that was missing. I'll also repeat what I said on this DRV's talk page: this is not about Esperanza. I have never been involved in Esperanza or a member of Esperanza. This is a general principle to ensure that Wikipedia organisations in general are shut down properly. Carcharoth 01:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And yes, Steve Block, I interpreted the comment to mean that the pages are to be deleted. Make of that what you want. I guess it's "admin abuse". alphachimp 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Check that edit you linked to above, I deleted eight pages based on that result and I've still got over a hundred in my to-do pile. I haven't got around to deleting the calendar redirects as yet, which to my mind aren't needed to preserve history. Steve block Talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That 'result' only covers the two days of 1 January and 2 January (it also covers 31 December, but nothing happened then). Deletions after that are not recorded, but should be apparent from red-links appearing in the existing lists of 'all Esperanza pages'. Carcharoth 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it's likely I deleted more, which I'm guessing is your point? Steve block Talk 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve, there was also this quote in the closing statement:

Messedrocker Solution will be applied to the rest of the pages; deletion not required.

Messedrocker later describes his solution as:

all the Esperanza pages (except Wikipedia:Esperanza itself) are blanked and made into redirects to Wikipedia:Esperanza, which is replaced with a notice on how it's closed down. This way, the history is still around, but it is effectively deleted.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, that's the state the pages should be in right now - membership & council pages should have been deleted and salted, the rest should have been blanked and redirected. Now, if someone wants to change that decision, one way or the other, DRV is the forum for it. Some people want to argue the case to change that decision, and delete everything? Fine, I'll argue the case to change the decision, and bring back all the page histories. The Messedrocker solution built up quite a bit of support on the MfD. Quite a few people here support restoring page histories. Why make an exception for governance? I believe we should keep the page history for things like governance, exactly because it was the worst thing about Esperanza. By keeping the history, people can see exactly what was wrong with it. Quack 688 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• You are quoting selectively here. The close had already stated to which pages the messed rocker solution did not apply, which negates Messed Rocker's earlier outline. If you recall, I did attempt to clarify these exact points during the mfd, but you told me that "there's not much point in having a duplicate vote here". It appears there may have been, it would have avoided this duplicate vote here. Steve block Talk 14:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding quoting selectively - you quoted one half, I quoted the other. The truth is a mix of both. As for duplicate votes, the point I made during the MfD was that someone who had simply voted "delete", without any explanation (is that just "get rid of the group", or "get rid of everything asoociated with the group"?) could always go back and change their vote into a "Messedrocker" or a "slash and burn delete", to be clearer - and quite a few people did exactly that. I agree that a discussion about interpreting the closing statement might have been useful, but we couldn't do that until the MfD had been closed in the first place. Quack 688 00:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• But that is what I tried to do. I tried to say that the consensus is for it to be shut down, so how are we going to do it, but that was pushed off the table. I don't know, sometimes it feels like to some the process is more important than the practicality. The truth of the quotations is that this DRV should quote the whole of the close, and not selective parts that make it appear to strengthen one case over another. It's silly not to think there are grey areas. Still, I'm looking at a way of resolving this. Steve block Talk 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The main thing though is that a list of pages has been recovered. Without that, it would have been difficult to say what pages were deleted. Can I urge anyone dealing with an umbrella nomination like this in future to keep a copy of the list they work from during the deletion (or get it from the deletion log afterwards), and put it on the MfD page to ensure an accurate record is kept of what was deleted. Carcharoth 01:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The trouble is, it was left to admin discretion which pages related to governance and membership and which didn't. I tried to clarify all of this at the time of the close and was told by User:Ed to "Read the results of this debate. It should have the necessary steps to take". Now that's what we all did and it appears we all read different things. To be honest, I don't think we're best served having this discussion, it's recreating tensions the close was supposed to put to bed. I had thought there was to be a month of seeing how the dust settled before we revisited it all. Steve block Talk 14:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I remember that discussion about a month's cool off, I'd have preferred waiting a month myself - actually, I think Ed would have as well. If you have a look at the history of Esperanza's talk page, you'll see that Ed added mention of this month's delay there, but it triggered an edit war, ultimately resulting in the page being protected. Quack 688 00:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul was apart of that statement. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't. I haven't finished trying to figure out what happened for all the pages (it's not that complicated to work out, I just need to find a few hours to construct the database in the form of a sortable table), but for this small area it seems pretty clear. Most of the /Overhaul pages were correctly treated by blanking and redirecting, two were deleted and recreated as redirects, and another two were later just deleted. Carcharoth 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Correctly blanked and redirected (history accessible)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Admin Coaching
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Appreciation Week
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Archiving
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Barnstar Brigade
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Becoming a part of the community
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Calendar
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Charter
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Coffee Lounge
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Collaboration of the Month
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Goals
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Governance
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Newsletter
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Noticeboard
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Outreach
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stressbusters
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/To-Do List
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/User Page Award
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/WikiProject Award
• Deleted and recreated as redirects (history not accessible)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul
  • Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Overhaul
• Deleted (history not accessible)
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Members List
  • Wikipedia:Esperanza/Overhaul/Stress Alerts

Possibly there are reasons for this (such as very little useful content). It is hard to tell from the deletion summaries used. Carcharoth 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that all of these pages should be posted in the archive box at WT:EA, similar to the COTM discussion. The overhauls were very important discussions after the 1st MfD.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where the links are doesn't matter too much, as long as the history is available. Incidentially, your example has lost its history. It was deleted and recreated as a redirect. Carcharoth 04:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Confused by that. I archived that and added it to the archived discussions as Ed indicates. That had already been dealt with. I had also redirected "the collaboration to Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive per mfd", as noted in the page history, but I see that got deleted. It does now appear this close generated a mess with admins overwriting the decisions of other admins. I therefore find that in some instances there does need to be a review, and that some pages need to be restored. Steve block Talk 14:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Stress Alerts page now exists at Wikipedia:Stress alerts, where the history is intact I believe. Governance and membership pages were to be immediately deleted and salted, if I recall the discussion properly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore histories. Esperanza was a mistake, but we should have it so that Wikipedians and other researchers can learn about it directly if they ever want to. — Matt Crypto 12:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Restore histories per consensus at MfD and archaeologists everywhere.:) JorcogaYell! 03:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Question so wait, some stuff was moved then the redirects were deleted and then re-created as protected redirects, which might explain a lot of the confusion.. why was that done? If my thinking is correct, the only thing that deleting those redirects and recreating them did was cause this whole confusing mess over nothing. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Apparently, yes. The first redirects that were created preserved the history, until the pages were deleted, which hid the history. A complete log of what happened is being created to better understand what's going on.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It sounds like the histories have been preserved, but the histories moved with the page move. Without a history showing where the page was moved to.. it makes things very confusing. In other words, there is a history for X, but we don't know where it is. I don't understand why this was done.. It should be fairly reasonable to find out where the history is for a given page. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily all of the pages were moved as required by the MfD. User:Carcharoth/Esperanza MfD review/Classification provides a classification of each page according to actions needed.
        1. Main Page - appropriate actions taken
        2. Governance - most, if not all, were deleted per MfD decisions
        3. Membership - most, if not all, were deleted per MfD decisions
        4. Programs - all moved to appropriate pages in Wikipedia namespace, per MfD decisions, histories still preserved but in different location
        5. Discussions- some deleted, some redirected to WP:EA, deleted pages did not follow MfD decisions
        6. Other - same as Discussion pages, some deleted against Meesedrocker Solution
      • As you can see, we really don't know why these actions were taken. This DRV is necessary in order to get a broader opinion, since not much Wikipedians didn't care for these deleted pages (see WT:EA archives and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza). This DRV enables us to get a broader opinion from other Wikipedians to probably didn't even participate in the MfD, and therefore are providing a more unbiased opinion.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Go edit the encyclopedia - I can't believe this is still going on. You want to restore the histories? Fine. Restore the histories. And after that, we need to have a firm consensus that the very next person who agitates ANYTHING to do with Esperanza should be banned indefinitely for WP:POINT. I don't have time for this magnitude of willful ignorance,and yet I find it ironic and apt that Esperanza continues to produce incivility , bad faith, divisiveness, and distract from editing the encyclopedia. Let it die. Bring the histories back so that there is nothing left to agitate over, and ban/block/ignore those who continue their histronics. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please attempt to AGF about everyone in this debate. Don't think that Esperanza is distracting us from the encyclopedia. This situation is inevitable. In addition, your recommendation seems to ask us to stretch the blocking and banning policies and to ban users just for discussing about how Esperanza was handled. Before moving on, please read and familiarize yourself with WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding the histrionics in your post, I'd like to point out that Esperanza has already 'died'. This process is an embalming of Esperanza before sticking it in a dusty drawer not to be looked at again for several years, if ever. This process might be distasteful to some, but some people like to try and finish something that is started, rather than leave something half-done and incomplete. OK, having said that, if anyone mentions any of my half-finished projects, they are urged to help me write the essay Wikipedia:I've started so I'll finish... (seriously, if there is an essay on how to get the balance right between giving up on something and leaving in a fit state for others to carry on working on it, I would like to know). Carcharoth 11:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Let it be. I've been working to try and get some sort of agreement on a way forward, but I can't seem to broker that, so in all honesty, this isn't worth the energy anymore. Let it be. Open invitation, though that anyone who wants to read through the history of any given page, is free to ask me and I'll be happy to restore the page to a position where the history can be read. I think ultimately, we're here to edit the encyclopedia, not research the history of a portion of the communities discussions. Steve block Talk 13:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll cary on working on preserving a record of what happened and what pages used to exist (as was not done at the time at the MfD). Can we be sure though that things will be done properly in the future? We need to recognise that sometimes we will need to dismantle and close down monolithic sub-organisations within Wikipedia, and it would be nice to let the historians and archivists take over, rather than just have everything turn into red links. Thanks also for the offer to restore pages on request. The main problem with that is that it presumes you will be around for the indefinite future. Also, I will say again that deletion should not be considered a rough-and-ready way of archiving. Stuff in the deletion tables was lost in the past, and considering the sheer amount of stuff in there (including images now), I wouldn't rule out future technical problems causing loss of deleted material. I think the deletion process needs an overhaul to distinguish between archiving and deletion. At the moment, the tests, spam, nonsense and other stuff that is deleted (and wouldn't be missed) is mixed up with old discussions and old versions of pages that might be of use one day. I'm going to check with the developers about this, as the situation might have changed since I last checked. Carcharoth 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Carcharoth, you know I wholeheartedly agree with you. I would be more than happy to put together a working party to go over this, I tried to during the debate, at the time of the close and I tried to here. But I'm not interested in finger pointing. You make an excellent point that these closes require thinking and discussion, but that needs to be accepted by the community. Where I tried to instigate one during the debate I was told it was inappropriate, and where admins try to discuss such discussions in private we are accused of operating a cabal, and where we try to discuss them in public they descend into farce. There is a serious and fundamental problem at play here, and perhaps it needs to be examined. However, I hope such problems never occur again, because I would rather we just all assumed good faith, and worked hard to avoid future organisations and factions.
    • Your points about the servers crashing and information being lost are well made, but I think they are underpinned by a misunderstanding. At some point, this information will be lost, will become meaningless, and we should never see ourselves as a preservation society, locked in a battle to save for some future historian the intricacies of the past. As someone with a minor interest in genealogy, I say this from experience; the people in the future will be more forgiving of us for losing stuff than you may believe. When we are long gone and all dust, we should be thankful that someone, somewhere, is happy just to know we existed. They don't need to know what colour socks we wore on a certain day, nor, ultimately, do they have to resurrect and extract all meaning from anything posted here. Such research is a double edged sword, as I think we can all agree, based on our experiences editing articles here.
    • Let's not assume grandiose ideals of our own worth to future generations, let's live in the here and now. What's the more important bequest we can make to the future? An encyclopedia, or the Esperanza minutiae? Steve block Talk 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "the people in the future will be more forgiving of us for losing stuff than you may believe" - LOL! Well said, Steve. Though I hope what we've said here has got through to some people. Enculturating a historical perspective is hopefully never wasted effort. It helps when writing encyclopedia articles, remembering to put things in their historical context. All encyclopedia editors should be at least a little bit aware of historical issues. Mine are white today by the way... (ooh, scary article there, with a fetish section). Anyway, I hope no-one minds if I carry on working on that list in my spare time. Carcharoth 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to closing admin

Can the admin closing this DRV please reference this page that I created halfway through the debate, and which helped to focus discussion. When complete, that page would seem to be a good way to quietly tie up loose ends, hopefully with a minimum of drama. Carcharoth 15:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

I've discussed the issue with the other main admins who helped administer the close by Mailer Diablo, and Mailer Diablo himself, and we are all happy to review the close and undertake to tie up any loose ends as we can per the closing comments of the deletion debate. I believe that commitment to rectify any errors caused by the workload and the number of admins involved should satisfy the demands of the deletion review process at this point. Steve block Talk 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional police detectives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Closing admin's comments were "The result was delete. Reasons to keep are neither rooted in policy, nor convincing. Duplicate of the related category." Actual votes cast were 6 keeps (one of them "strong"), 5 deletes, 1 keep which was withdrawn so maybe should be counted as a delete, one abstain (from procedural nominator) and two speedy closes which I think need to be disregarded (one of them from a user who also voted keep). On the face of it, therefore, an obvious no-consensus default-keep, leaving us only to deal with the closing admin's discount of the keep votes and his or her own opinion that the list is duplicated by the category. It's hard to rebut the "not rooted in policy" assertion, since I cannot see what the closing admin based it on, nor what policy he or she thinks the delete votes were based on. I expect Proto will come here and comment, and I will either agree, or rebut, when I see that explanation. For my own part, I would assert that my vote ("nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it") is precisely AS rooted-in-policy, no more no less, than the nomination which asserted that the article should be deleted because it was indescriminate and unmaintainable. That leaves the suggestion that the article was duplicated by the category. The relevant guideline on this, here says "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes... These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." When looking for "official guidance" (so to speak) on whether a list and a category can be redundant with one another, therefore, the wikipedia guideline says that they are not. I see a keep voter saying "The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition". I do not know why that was considered "unconvincing", and I cannot now look at the page to check, since it has been deleted and I am not an admin. However if David Edgar is right on that point then Proto is wrong. I would argue (and our guideline seems to support the view) that a list is not redundant with a category even if it contains exactly the same information, since it has scope to expand in a way the category does not. AndyJones 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse (my own) closure. If we have to go through them:

• • Keep as a common and notable character archetype. - OK, so we should have an article about the archetype. This wasn't it. Non sequitur.
  • Keep. Easily defined profession and archetype. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. - see above.
  • Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion - Docu's first vote, ignored as clearly incorrect.
  • Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. - ditto.
  • Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it - fair enough.
  • Keep as per above two comments - ignored as above two comments were to delete, and was Docu's second "vote".
  • keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre - nothing but keep it as I like it and it's useful.
  • Keep. The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition - good argument, referring to WP:NOT issues and why the user doesn't believe them to be an issue.

So there were two decent "keep"s, three poor ones, and two ignored. Of the deletes:

• Comment just a response to the statment that we should have an article about the archetye, there are at least two Detective fiction and Police Procedural, and in fact, a version of this list (and several others) can be found at the bottom of the first page. I do not think that information should be removed, does anyone here? Mister.Manticore 04:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness - OK, so asserts indiscriminate (WP:NOT). This in contradiction to one of the keep votes, but I'm not judging whether or not you are right, I'm determining whether the votes are argued well and rooted in policy. So, referencing WP:NOT, good argument.
  • Delete. A stock character of a genre, of which the only thing they have in common is carrying a badge: not nationality, era, medium, personality, hair color, height, etc. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me. There's this thing called "Categories" which would be more useful - again referencing WP:NOT ("indiscriminate list"), and also pointing out the belief that categories duplicate the content. Good argument. There are then three 'delete per this arguments', which are fine.

So that's five good deletes, rooted in policy. The nomination was also broken up, making it look purely like a procedural nomination despite being done in good faith, but even with discountint the nomination as an argument to delete, it's still five solid delets versus two solid keeps and three very weak ones. I am aware that viewing each argument is always going to be subjective, but I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed those to keep, particularly as most information is retained via the category. Proto::► 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Arguments which are wrong do not count towards the closure. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, Proto should have made more closings in that group since several of the others were closed incorrectly. >Radiant< 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - There is nothing better about the delete comments than the keep comments. Most of both were "it's useful" or "it's unuseful listcruft". As for the arguments: are you telling me that there's a huge difference between keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case a notably important list for the genre and The list clearly provides more information than the category and is a well-organised source of information with a clear definition? By your reasoning, the second invokes WP:NOT, while the first is WP:ILIKEIT. This is pretty shaky grounds, and I'm worried the admin is reading what he wishes into the comments. Just as bad, he completely ignored Docu's "vote", despite the fact it contained clear reasoning (i.e., look at the reasoning in the previous afd). Patstuart^talk|edits 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse closure. I think the actual result probably should have been "no consensus" (thus "keep"); however, this one was a judgment call and the closing admin displayed a reasonable exercise of judgment. Agent 86 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, closer's reasoning was sound and no reason to overturn. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse policy-based closure well within admin discretion. Eluchil404 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. User:Iamunknown created this AfD page by error two days after the extensive discussion of various arguments for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors (a listing that included List of fictional police detectives; see the explanation User:Iamunknown later provided at User:Iamunknown/afd).

Looks like this was deleted mainly because the reasons for keeping provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors were ignored and probably because AndyJones omitted to cross-reference his rejection of Radiant's argument (it was provided on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_heroic_fictional_scientists_and_engineers and cross-referenced after many of Radiant's 11 re-post's on the January 3 deletion pages). -- User:Docu

• That is false. You are the one that tagged all those pages with those ludicrous "out of process" arguments. In this case I agreed with the good reasoning by Calton, which has nothing to do with what Andy said against me on a different page. WP:KETTLE, you know. >Radiant< 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Did get to read User:Iamunknown/afd?. -- User:Docu

• Endorse I agree with Proto's reasoning above. Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Digital Photography Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It is my impression that dpreview.com is _the_ online ressource for cameras. The site was recommended to me, and when I got down to the camera store I found that they used it too. Seems to be an established site, with comprehensive coverage of current high-end camera models, ahve very active forums. Searching for "dpreview" gives me over 4 million hits.

Was speedy deleted after being tagged with {{db-web}}. Thue | talk 14:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Three sentence stub had no assertion of notability. That makes a valid WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. Post it at Wikipedia:Requested articles if you don't have time to to find independent, reliable sources and write an article yourself. GRBerry 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So if we just insert a link to [18] which says that dpreview is a top 1000 website, thereby documenting notability, then you would be satisfied that the article should be restored? There doesn't seem to be any complete reviews of the site on the web, but nytimes and cnet regularly link to it. Why not simply undelete the stub and use it as a starting point? It is irrelevant that the speedy deletion was formally correct because the article did not cite notability. Thue | talk 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Yes, it is relevant that it was formally correct, because you can and should just start a new article with notability asserted. Understand, though, that since you imply there are no sources, I'll immediately AfD it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - again, appears to be an improper speedy. If it's even close, it goes to afd. If it appears notable (as 1 minute of research would show) and is unsourced, then tag it with {{unsourced}} or afd it. Otherwise, it's what one admin decides despite what community consensus may be: and that is definitely against what an WP:ADMIN is not - above the rest of the community. At least undelete it so the poor guy can give sources. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• You are all missing the point!. I don't care if it was an improper delete (I myself think it was proper). What matters is that I have now (quite strongly IMO) asserted notability, which means that Wikipedia should have an article, and the deleted article should be restored and used as a starting point. What you are doing is meaningless Wikipedia:WikiLawyering about the properness of the original speedy delete, not thinking about improving Wikipedia. Thue | talk 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  That's what I meant by what I said. Overturn to let you source it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry. I guess I focussed on your first "appears to be an improper speedy" sentense. Thue | talk 20:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  No, an after the fact assertion of notability does not mean that the old article should be returned. It means that you believe it is possible to write a decent article - so you should just go write that decent article. GRBerry 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  If you actually did look at the deleted article then you would see that it is very decent, except for the point that it does not claim notability. I am trying to improve Wikipedia here, in a completely reasonable way, and you are working against me. Why? Thue | talk 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - Agree with GRBerry. As it stood, the article was an unsourced stub. Even just adding a single link for notability wouldn't have helped much. Rather than working to have it undeleted, a better option would be to rewrite the article, expanding it outside of being a stub and adding more WP:N references, then add it to Wikipedia. Even just a couple paragraphs with references would be good enough to stand as an article. -- Kesh 21:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  While sources would be nice, we usually don't delete articles when the facts such as website owner can be verified in 30 seconds by actually going to the website. I think the people here voting delete are acting quite silly, caring more about WikiLawyering than improving Wikipedia, but it is getting easier to just rewrite the article that to convince you of (what I think is) the obvious. Thue | talk 21:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite. -- Kesh 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This AfD debate was closed by a non-administrator as a "keep". Per WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators closing discussions, any closes by non-admins must be "unambiguous "keep" decisions". This, in my opinion, wasn't one of those. Note: the current "disputed" tag is not about this sentence of that section, but rather an addition to it regarding closing as "delete" which is unrelated to this DRV. The fact that the section is disputed is non-consequential to this because it is unrelated to the part I'm talking about.

Firstly, remember AfD is not a vote. Donald Albury's input was still under dispute as to whether it brought up a good reason to delete, and the status of that argument is certainly ambiguous. Although some of the keep opinions were explained, a lot weren't, and I would have felt that, at the third-last version[19], a no-concensus close is right on the money.

However, this diff[20], the last before it is closed, is the best argument of the lot, in my opinion. With this, any hint of unambiguity is vanquished and this becomes an AfD which needs to be interpreted on the guidelines of WP:CORP and WP:NOTE by an administrator. I feel that, given Nick's argument, this should either be relisted to gain further input so concensus can be reached, or else the AfD reopened, allowed to run a couple more days to discuss Nick's extremely valid input, and then closed on its merits again.

Note that I am a huge advocate of non-admins closing discussions, and I acknowledge that people do make mistakes; maybe I made one by nominating this for DRV, who knows? I hold nothing against the closer, however I felt that he/she should probably have erred on the side of caution given the circumstances, especially the undiscussed last deletion comment by Nick, and left it for an admin to apply the guidelines to. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• That argument was also made by Donald Albury on 7 January, four days earlier. Had I found (and even looked at) closing that AFD, I'd have closed it as keep. (Although I do think that argument should have been better responded to - either by explaining the depth of coverage in those books or by agreeing with it if the depth is trivial.) Since reopening it and closing with the same outcome is pointless; I endorse closure and award the non-admin closer one light slap on the hand. GRBerry 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "subject of the book issue" wasn't mentioned, nor was the specifics WP:CORP. Neither of these were actually discussed in any way, shape or form. What I mean is reopen it, let it run for a few more days while discussing the validity or otherwise of Nick's arguments, then reclose it on its merits. For all we know, the concensus may swing on the basis that a rational argument based in Wikipedia guideline and common practice. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - consensus to keep was obvious and unambiguous. Proto::► 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure but Undo closure if you wish - appeared fairly unambiguous to me. But the linked WP:DELPRO section states quite clearly that if a non-admin closes a debate that you think was ambiguous, then you can just undo their closure. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as keep, without prejudice to another AfD in a couple of months if the article is not sourced further. Additional work on the article may (or may not) render the delete arguments moot, and no harm will follow from allowing the article's proponents some time to work on it, rather than overturning closure which will put it back on AfD right away. Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad 18:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per endorsements above, esp. GRBerry, and also because it's how I would have closed it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. It doesn't matter how good the delete arguments were; the keep arguments were good, so there was no consensus, at the least. And arguing about whether it should have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus" is stupid. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That wasn't what I was arguing for...I think you totally missed the point of me requesting this review XD I wanted it to be reopened so Nick's argument, the best of the lot in my opinion, could be discussed/maybe draw more people in/maybe refuted. Meh, doesn't matter, I'll just re-AfD it in a months time, as NYB said, and then it can be deleted. It's quite handy to know that non-ambigious non-admin closes can be reverted - is that only by admins, or can anyone? Responses on my talk page please, as this is withdrawn by candidate. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to Lose (Heroes) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

• There was clearly no consensus for deletion, episodes of TV series are notable inheritly and encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• As noted at the AfD, the page was almost devoid of content, because there are no sources for any content, because the show has not yet aired. The only information that is not devoid of content is "The episode's title was originally given to the seventh episode, which was ultimately titled "Nothing to Hide".", which is unsourced. The rest is simply ""Nothing to Lose" is the fifteenth episode of the TV series Heroes." That's not an encyclopedia article, and an influx of fans of the show saying "Every other television show has an article" does not change that; calling every episode of every television series "inherently notable" is bizarre. —Centrx→talk • 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. In the vast majority of situations, an article should not exist on an episode that hasn't yet aired. Exceptions would be episodes such as series finales that receive lots of coverages, such as the Seinfeld or Friends finales. While I agree that this episode should have article after it airs, I strongly disagree that TV episodes are somehow "inherently notable". SuperMachine 14:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion WP:V is a policy that trumps consensus. Additionally, the claim that "all episodes of a TV series are notable" has, to the best of my knowledge, never been proven correct, and is not likely to. For certain series, yes, for certain broadcast networks and times of day (prime time), yes, but for local public access TV, absolutely not. GRBerry 15:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist (if you wish) - agreed page is worthy of deletion, non-notable and unsourced. However, not a single person made that argument (i.e., unsourced) in the discussion, which makes it appear that Centrx paid no attention to the discussion and formed his own opinion on the article. This is a problem precisely because we have a discussion in order to gain consensus - otherwise, any admin could delete any file without community input. If a closing admin disagrees with the prevailing consensus by bringing up a new point which has not been mentioned, it should be placed in the text of the discussion under delete, simply because sometimes, certain arguments to not occur to those in the discussion, and the new idea should be discussed, not unilaterally decided. Bit of a run on statement, but I think I got my idea across. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In this comment User:Srose correctly noted that this episode hadn't even aired yet (it won't for nearly a month). It's nearly impossible for an episode to be notable or reliably sourced if nobody has even seen it. AfD isn't a vote, so one insightful comment such as this can have more weight than any number of keep "votes" with weak justification. SuperMachine 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There most certainly can be sourced information on an upcoming episode, even if it's not much. For that matter, I think you may have it backwards: it's actually more likely to be sourceable than not, as the article writer has not just watched the episode (i.e., OR?), but gotten his/her information from other sources. -Patstuart^talk|edits 17:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, but the question is if they're reliable sources. Spoiler sites and the like are often quite inaccurate. SuperMachine 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • In the vast majority of cases, there's at least some early info about the episode from the network itself, either on their website or from a press release. Articles about movies aren't forbidden until the day of release, are they? Or any other unreleased "product". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • A film is usually singular and major; there are typically many articles in newspapers and magazines about upcoming films. The same is true for various other products such as computer software. The analogous product on television, however, is not a single episode, but the entire television series. Most individual episodes of television shows do not have any reliable sources about them even after they air, let alone before. In this case, there was no early info. —Centrx→talk • 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn (no objection to relisting) - I find it very alarming that an admin would close an AfD with a reason that hadn't even been mentioned by any of the people supporting deletion, it gives the impression that instead of determining consensus, he ignored it and made a unilateral decision. In addition, information being uncited is something that is potentially fixable, if this had been brought up during the AfD instead of being mentioned for the first time at the closing, editors would have had the opportunity to remedy that (if that's possible). If it turns out there's no verifiable info about the episode yet (I don't personally know either way), then the article will only stay deleted until the first information arrives, which is a matter of a couple weeks, if not days. There's no question that this is a temporary deletion, and that there will be a complete article soon. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The idea that episodes are "inherently notable and encyclopaedic" is a statement of doctrine, not an argument to policy. This is not a hugely popular programme, an article per series should be fine. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, when the episode airs and a full article is written, will you still support deleting it? You do realize that wikipedia has many articles on individual TV episodes, many for shows much less notable than Heroes, right? And what policy supports the notion that shows should only have episode articles if they are "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hugely popular shows always have reliable sources about them, while unheard-of shows usually do not. —Centrx→talk • 01:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Heroes has plenty of reliable sources about it (although it seems like not much about this episode, yet). So would that mean you consider this show "hugely popular"? --Milo H Minderbinder 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For some values of reliable, anyway. I wonder why we are considered to be an episode guide for TV shows? I thought this was an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure how you come to such a conclusion about its popularity: [21] Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - For the same reasons Patstuart and Milo H Minderbinder have already placed. It was an unjustified removal.Jacobshaven3 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Unaired episodes must have reliable secondary sources to have articles because the primary source is not availible. After it's aired, it is at least basically verifiable from primary and trivial (TV listing) sources and we can have the WP:N based battle royal discussion of whether to keep the article or move any notable information into a series or season article. But untill then, it can and should stay deleted per policy. Eluchil404 08:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn What the heck is the point of having the discussion if one administrator can over rule many keep votes. At the very least this should have been no concensus. EnsRedShirt 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per above (V, CB, etc...). The assertion that TV episodes are "inherently notable" is certainly not a claim that I agree with. Eusebeus 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

It was deleted for absolutly no legitimate reason, without any discussion. Oi! is a genuine music genre, and not a "neologism" as described by the editor who incorrectly deleted the article. There are many, many Wikipedia articles that link to the Oi! article. It should be restored immediately. Also, judging by the comments on User:Jimfbleak's talk page, perhaps his powers of deletion should be revoked, at least temporarily until he gets a better handle on Wikipedia policies. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD, I can attest to this being a very notable term in Australia. Like Wanker before it - which was kept - this is a very grey area, and not one which is solved by CSD. I can't see the content, so if it was not expressing any notability at all then consider this opinion void, but on the face of it this term is notable. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Silly me, this wasn't the term (I should stop guessing) - Oi exists (note that the addition of "Oi! is a genuine music..." was after I commented). I wouldn't have bothered commenting, but now I'm left to, so neutral pending a history restore so I can see the content. Spylab, please leave the deleters credentials, or possible lack thereof, out of this - this debate is about the article, not the deleter. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article appears to have been deleted when it was in a vandalized state. I will restore it now and inform the admin who deleted it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The_Game_(game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

"The Game" is the name of a legitimate game that does not exist on any physical medium. That it does not exist physically is one unique aspect of The Game, another being that no one can ever win The Game, though that point is debated by some. The way The Game works is as follows: when you think of The Game, you lose The Game. The Game restarts after one who loses The Game "forgets" about The Game, i.e. when it leaves the person's present state of thought. When one loses The Game (meaning he thought about the game), he anounces it to those around him which technically makes them lose The Game, however the loss does not count for them in when this happens. The Game deserves a page on Wikipedia for the same reasons that Monopoly or The Game of Life deserves a page on Wikipedia. Just because it is not well known, is not tangible, and is simple does not mean that it is illegitimate. Please consider this appeal. Spylab 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I don't care about well-known. It's verifiability that's the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the appellant has showed no reason why the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game) (6th nomination) was faulty, nor any new information to consider that close null and void. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Daniel Bryant Bwithh 12:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, endorsed less than a fortnight ago, no new information. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was, but whatlinkshere didn't show any recent DRV's. On re-reading, I presume you mean the AfD closed late December. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion no new information provided that would give us a reason why the article should be undeleted. --SunStar Net^talk 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion again No new information presented that wasn't considered in the AFD and in the deletion review on January 1. GRBerry 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's where it was :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tumbler Ridge coa.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Deleted here, requested undeletion here, used here: Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. It was tagged with {{coatofarms}} but I didn't upload or watch it so I did not get the notice that its (what-they-thought-was-a) "copyright tag" was removed. I request that it be restored, tagged with {{symbol}}, and kindly moved to a better name, so that it can be used that article again. Also, same with Image:FSJ Flag.jpg deleted here, used here. Thanks. maclean 04:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Image was deleted as lacking any copyright information. Do you have the source information? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Baker's Dozen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

The Baker's Dozen is a accapella singing group from Yale which was Deleted on December 26, 2006 due to lack on notability. However a week later, the group has gained a great deal more notablity in the United States (and possibly worldwide) due to an assault on the entire group which is allegedly being mishandled by the San Francisco Police Department, below are a few sources

• Yale Choir Assaulted; No Arrests By SFPD - KGO-TV.
• KESQ-TV story about outrage caused by assult
• WTNH story
• Yahoo! news report
• Google news search results for the group

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbmixpro (talk • contribs).

• Relist The AfD closure was completely correct, so that's not a particularly contentious issue. This atack has certainly made the news, but we must recall that WP:NOT Wikinews. Thus, I'd suggest a relisting (with the news sources added to the restored article) as opposed to a simple (kept) restoration to decide if the group has any actual notability. -- Kicking222 03:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist because of new information with the usual pointers about "multiple coverage of a single day's news event counts as one coverage". I am unclear, having read the AFD, whether there was consensus on anything that would count as a second source for notability. GRBerry 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  Keep deleted I'm convinced by the arguments of Bwithh, and Guy. GRBerry 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep closed Group has gained a little bit of news notability for being assaulted and being a minor news item. No substantive claim of encyclopedic notability from new sources. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Bwithh 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This is a pretty good example of how "notability" and "verifiability" are similar but not necessarily identical concepts. For a music group, getting beat up does not equal additional notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Wikinews is over there on the right. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per above. Eusebeus 07:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist... they've suddenly found notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Catholic-link (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|TfD)

Catholic-link is a talk page template which recommends the use of the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Such a template is unprecedented for Wikipedia. This will open the way for similar banners from other sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and many others in the public domain or otherwise, resulting in conflicts over which sources should be given special lobbying treatment. Already there is considerable conflict over this (the TfD was "no consensus"), but the issue is bigger than that - do we want users lobbying with banner templates for a particular source to be used? Recommend a change from no consensus to Delete. Thank you. Stbalbach 02:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The closing admin was correct, there was no consensus to delete. Nominator here does not cite a policy that overrides consensus. We frankly could use more pointers to old historical sources; we aren't very good at using them in our daily editing. Concerns about competition could be improved by a template that takes a list of sources and links; something akin to {{historical-free-sources|source1=[url|name]|source2=[url|name]|...}}. GRBerry 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• That is true multiple listings could be created. But I've rarely see someone who is an expert on a topic use old encyclopedia articles, so why encourage it? Wikipedia is beyond the stage of having to fill up blank space, it needs to improve quality, not encourage old material that has not been properly vetted by an expert who knows if it is still accurate or not. It takes someone with a lot of skill, time and knowledge to properly import an old article into Wikipedia. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, you provided no reason why the closing was bad, just reasons you disagree with it. DRV is not XfD round 2, most especially not for things which weren't deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why was the closure bad? Because the majority of people wanted it deleted - most of us are veteran experienced editors who have dealt with the endemic problem of old encyclopedia article material on Wikipedia for many years. The keep arguments are weak in comparison to the problem. This problem of old encyclopedias has been discussed in many places, see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias#The_origins_of_bias (last bullet point), Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and various discussions at Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. We also have pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources which list resources for editors at the Project level. -- Stbalbach 20:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you see, you're doing the same thing again. The fact that you think there is a problem doesn't mean we can ignore consensus (which is not just a majority). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• But there's no problem if you believe the consensus in the debate was for deletion ... I don't see a single well-founded argument for keep and the delete arguments address three of the four TfD criteria (not useful/encyclopedic, redundant and isn't NPOV and can't be fixed). It only escaped the fourth (is not used) because editors who disagreed with it's WP:BEANS application to articles had not made a concerted effort to remove it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• They thought it was useful, so that's gone. If you claim it's redundant, that implies that there's another template that you don't intend to delete, so that doesn't really make sense. And POV claims are absurd; saying that there is an article on the subject somewhere else is objectively true. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• It goes beyond objective fact. The template says "could be used as a source in this article" - it is encouraging users to use it as a source. Why this source and not another? We all agree links should be in External Links - but object to the "could be used as a source" sentiment of the template. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you're saying. Yes, you could use another source, but the template says "Hey look, here's a source someone found, you can use that!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, here's two I made earlier. As it says on the page, others are easy. Writing the PBW/PIR/PmBZ articles will only take a little while. Let's all get writing talk page templates to recommend the sources we'd like to see used. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from a classic illustration of WP:POINT what are you trying to show? If there are a multitude of sources that can be usefully used to expand an article then we could use a multiple template as in {{Oldafdmulti}}. JASpencer 23:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I happen to know Angusmclellan is sincere in wanting to use that source as he added it to another resource list earlier today. Let's get past all this personal stuff - the idea of a general "resource" template is a great idea and resolves some problems - although I fear it may have larger un-intended consequences, this is virgin territory that has never been done on Wikipedia before - I can see room for abuse, but it's worth a try. -- Stbalbach 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Amarkov, it is redundant in comparison to the effects that a simple, plain text notice and signature can produce on an article's talk page. It duplicates a very simple effort that any interested editor can perform, but it adds a pseudo-official feel to the suggestion, especially for new editors who mistake templates for official endorsement. But its function can be accomplished by plain text; that's how it's redundant. And I've addressed the POV-and-can't-be-fixed criterion below, especially in my replies to Gimmetrow. — coelacan talk — 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and encourage edit-warring over JASpencer's templating rampage. No, on second thoughts that's a bad plan. At least one keep opinion was entirely misinformed (MrDarcy (talk • contribs) confused these templates with {{Catholic}}), one was a simple vote (but TfD is notavote). There was no consensus here to keep these templates and the concerns from a wide variety of editors (including me: I've written articles for the Saints wikiproject, as have Stbalbach and Wetman) were real and justified. We should not encourage the addition of any more CE or EB material. Overturn and delete per clear consensus at TfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Personal opinion. I beleieve that my closing was correct (obviously) but I believe that according to policy, the template should have been deleted. However, consensus comes before what I personally believe policy says, so take my vote here with whatever grain of salt you would like to. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse No clear consensus at TfD and no overriding policy (as opposed to pragmatic) reason to delete. I would not be opposed to a relist (as I am generally not opposed to relists of no consensus closes). Eluchil404 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure There are a number of items here that have not been addressed. Despite what Angus McLellan says the original summary is right in one respect, there was "considerable conflict" on this subject. The nominator also overlooked the negative response to an attempt to drum up indignation here, which he did revisit later without deeming to pass this on. Although this has nothing to do with the fact that there was no consensus it should be pointed out that his was an admitted attempt to insert a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias" to Wikipedia articles. This makes the original nomination, and even more so the review, an inappropriate nomination. If the two objectors wish to enforce a bias against pre Vatican II Catholic beliefs and practices through a purge of links to an online source they really should try to change WP:NPOV first. Doing it through deletion votes looks to me to be gaming the system. JASpencer 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop this campaign to paint anyone who disagrees with you as being biased, it is distasteful and wrong. No one has a problem with linking directly to the Catholic Encyclopedia article in the External Links section. -- Stbalbach 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please don't get personal. I was merely repeating what you said. It is perfectly legitimate to prefer a "late-twentieth century secularist systematic bias" to the aims of WP:NPOV but it should be argued openly, not through template deletions and deletion reviews. JASpencer 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Followed up on your talk page. -- Stbalbach 21:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• relist This one needs a further discussion, especially as it is being abused by being placed on pages containing any pre20th c content, even when the articles was in fact derived in large pt from that dictionary. Everyone writing on the range of subjects covered knows about it. If it was an attempt to counter unfair 20th c POV it has backfired. The reason for a deletion relist is to get this deleted with enough of a message that people wont try the like again. If opinion is to do a 2nd listing, that's OK too.DGG 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Consensus was clear. Thirteen votes for deletion, five for keeping. One of those keeps (Mr. Darcy) was obviously an argument for keeping Template:Catholic by mistake, and another (Grutness) was almost certainly making the same mistake of conflating with Template:Catholic. Three clear votes for keep, one of which (Goldfritha) made no argument. So, two actual arguments for keeping (JASpencer and Freder1ck).
  

Of these two arguments for keeping, Freder1ck's was the strongest ("I would like to see more articles that integrate historical points of view with contemporary points of view", but Wetman countered this argument ("In general, no template for Wikipedia articles can be automatically applied. A cut-and-pasted note on a talkpage — "This article might benefit from material in the Catholic Encyclopedia" — where explicitly relevant, might be a useful head's-up") as did Sugaar ("The appropiate way to do it is to use Template:Expand and, if appropiate, suggest that this or that source may be helpful (in the talk page)") and myself ("There isn't usually any useful information there to be had. When there is, an editor can take eleven seconds to make explicit note of it on the article's talk page. The templates sitting around add very little helpful direction. ... They mention that the CE could be used. A nice sentiment in theory but in practice it's practically cruft"). Thus Freder1ck's argument should have been considered adequately answered, and then it's just JASpencer against the world. In the face of thirteen Deletes, I fail to see how this one argument standing could be considered No Consensus, and so I believe that RyanGerbil10 closed the TfD incorrectly.

Regarding the template itself, now that I've addressed the procedural problems, I'd like to make something clear that was not fully discussed in the TfD. Templates carry a weight of authority. Multiple IPs and new users have mistaken me for an admin just because I left warning templates with stop-signs on their talk pages. This has happened to me often enough that I am certain others among you have experienced it as well. Wikipedia should not be giving the appearance of officially endorsing a partisan source, and regardless of intention, this template gives that appearance. This template is a blinking POV barrier to many potential new users, and will discourage participation from many communities whose participation we need in order to thrive. When there is actual useful information in the Catholic Encyclopedia for an article, a plain old text note on the talk page, followed by a user's signature, will make that clear to everyone without inadvertently suggesting any official endorsement. JASpencer loses nothing when this template is deleted; that user is perfectly capable of using unadorned text to make notes. But the unintended consequences of this template upon the rest of Wikipedia are not worth the convenience it may serve for JASpencer. — coelacan talk — 09:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure So long as the template is on the talk page, it should be fine. I would welcome a similar banner for The Jewish Encyclopedia and the 1911 Brittanica. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 05:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

• Freder1ck, do you believe that the template adds something (besides the appearance of authority and endorsement) that a plain old text note on the talk page would not add? Does it accomplish some measurable purpose that unadorned text, with a section header and signature, cannot accomplish? — coelacan talk — 05:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete per coelacan, to whose eloquent summary of the concensus I have little to add. Persuasive points were made against suggesting articles be sourced from a dated source with a singular world view. Minority keep opinions were well rebutted during the debate and at least one keep voter was clearly thinking of another template altogether. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I said delete during the discussion stating it be recreated fresh as a progress template for wikiproject CE. This same argument could be used to support a keep, and contrary to nominator there is precedent for templates which "suggest" some other text be used. Neither of these arguments were addressed by other "delete" voters. I personally think the history surrounding this template makes deletion necessary so a progress template can be created without baggage. However, I endorse RyanGerbil10's assessment of the discussion. Gimmetrow 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Neither of these arguments were addressed by other "delete" voters" I believe I have addressed this in my (apparently TLDR) post above. The problem with using a template to suggest this particular text (the CE) is that it gives an appearance of official partisanship on the part of Wikipedia. Templates are mistaken by new users for being something that only admins can apply. Shouldn't be that way, but that's how it plays out. An appearance of official Catholic partisanship on the part of Wikipedia cannot be a good thing. As to the progress tracker for a wikiproject, this is something the wikiproject can handle on their own project page, isn't it? It's one thing to say "this page is within the scope of the Catholicism WikiProject"; it's quite another to use a template to suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia needs to be consulted before this article can be considered finished. It's not a huge deal to say "try consulting the old Brittanica too" but the suggestion that an openly partisan source like the CE must be consulted is a different thing entirely. — coelacan talk — 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clarify: Neither of these arguments were addressed by the "delete" voters during the TfD, and there were about five days from my making them until close of TfD. Therefore I agree with the admin's closure based on the discussion at the time. I disagree that you have addressed these arguments even here. I agree with you the template text should be rephrased, but that's not the point. Gimmetrow 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there's nothing wrong with addressing things that were not addressed during the deletion discussion. Deletion review is also for considering new evidence, and I believe my argument above should be considered the same as new evidence. Now, can you explain to me how I have not addressed your concerns? Because it seems clear to me that I have. You cannot "agree with [me] that the template text should be rephrased" because I hold no such stance. No template of this kind should exist, because it gives entirely the wrong impression to new users. And a progress indicator can be handled at the Wikiproject's own internal page. What's not addressed? — coelacan talk — 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1) There is a precedent for templates suggesting some text could be used to improve an article. The nominator said there was no precedent. I see nowhere you have addressed this.
• 2) This template was (AFAIK) intended as some sort of progress template, apparently created as an alternative to a category. If you now want to offer yet more alternatives for the wikiproject, we would need to revisit the entire discussion that resolved on a template. I don't think WP:DRV is the place for that.
• I hold that the current text is unacceptable for (I'm going to assume) much the same reasons you do, however that does not preclude some other template that functions as a wikiproject progress template. Thus, this template could also be rephrased in that way. How could you possibly object to an unknown template you've never seen? Gimmetrow 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• There is certainly no precedent for templates suggesting openly partisan sources, nor should there be; this template would be the beginning of such a precedent. The template cannot be considered an alternative to a category, because it adds a category. And the template is not being used as a progress tracker, because as DGG points out above, it is being abused and applied even to articles that have already long since passed the point of potentially being helped by CE material. Read the TFD again. JASpencer will not let the template be removed unless an article "has all the usable text from the Catholic Encyclopedia article". This is not a progress tracker; it is an attempt to force Wikipedia to mirror all CE partisan content. I object to any templates that would be applied whenever a Wikipedia article has not used "enough" of another particular source yet. We should not be beholden to any particular sources, and we should not have to carry around templates reminding us that we haven't used the CE or any other source "enough" yet, as though we should or must and cannot shed such templates until we do. On a side note, if it your opinion that there should be further discussion of the template's actual usefulness, then a vote of "relist" is more in line with your thinking than one of "endorse". Endorsement will not lead to further discussion, only acceptance of the current template's status quo. — coelacan talk — 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for telling me how to vote and telling me to read the TfD again, but I disagree. The TfD was closed correctly as "no concensus", even though it was closed opposite to my view. It is now up to JASpencer and/or wikiproject CE to rephrase the template and use it appropriately as a progress tracker, such that the delete arguments are irrelevant. If the template is abused, bring it up for TfD #2 in a few months. Gimmetrow 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you felt I was insulting or patronizing you. You've raised objections and I have tried to answer them. In doing so, I needed to refer back to something that JASpencer said earlier. That's all. Forget I said anything to you about relisting. I should have kept my mouth shut. So anyway, please, can you explain to me why two arguments for keeping and over ten arguments for deletion should be construed as "no consensus"? And how could the template possibly be used in such a way that the deletion arguments would be irrelevent? Any kind of CE progress tracker template, no matter how worded, would effectively mean that Wikipedia has not used "enough" CE yet, and still needs to use more. This is simply not something we should carry around on article talk pages, no matter how worded. The meaning behind it, "Wikipedia needs more Catholic Encyclopedia" is tantamount to taking articles hostage. There's no wording that would change the effect of such a template. — coelacan talk — 20:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, xFD is not a vote, arguments do matter. MaxSem 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Stbalbach, Angusmclellan, Coelacan, MaxSem. I feel the arguments to delete it (the huge problems with old encyclopedic material, the redundancy with some existing templates) outweigh the keep votes in that particular AfD. — mark ✎ 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I thought this was a debate not a vote, so as far as I can see the consensus was clearly for delete (see Coelacan's thorough analysis). The delete arguments are stronger if improving this encyclopaedia is your chief concern. The Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1913 fails WP:RS in too many areas (the same goes for the 1911 Britannica). The whole idea of this template is based on the false premise that the longer an article is, the better it must be. But less is more in this case. I've improved articles by chopping material from out-of-date sources, including this one. We should be aiming for increased accuracy, not increased length. The "Catholic Encyclopaedia" is available online anyway, so what's the point of reproducing it here? Just give an external link. When you access the CE site, you know what you are getting; it's quite clear what POV the authors are working with and the era they were writing in. That isn't the case with Wikipedia, which aims at WP:NPOV. It's also offensive to editors who have been working with more recent sources trying to create a more accurate article to have this template slapped on their work; it might be seen as a violation of WP:CIVIL. --Folantin 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The admin closed the debate properly. This is turning into a second AfD attempt, with most of the delete votes based on "it might be misused", which is not an argument for deleting anything that has even a small set of positive uses. --tjstrf talk 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Except that none of the deletion arguments are just "it might be misused". Every single deletion argument has pointed out that consensus was overlooked. There were two arguments for keeping, and they were well addressed already in the Tfd. Tell me, what is the "small set of positive uses" for this template that cannot be achieved by plain text on a talk page? And what is it that overrides the fact that JASpencer has already stated intention to use this template to hold articles hostage until full mirroring of CE content? Again, it's very convenient to say "oh this is turning into tfd again" because that gives the impression that we're just using DRV to argue about content, but please, point out exactly who is not attesting to broken procedure and overlooked consensus? Yes, there will be discussion of content. That is pretty much unavoidable, but it doesn't negate the fact that every deletion argument is also about procedure. Please don't set up straw men. — coelacan talk — 10:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note also, above, that the closing admin has already said "according to policy, the template should have been deleted". So the question is only whether the keep arguments were properly counted, (I have argued they were not) and whether the remaining keep arguments were sufficiently answered (I have argued they were). Why don't you scroll up to my analysis, starting with "Overturn and delete. Consensus was clear. Thirteen votes for deletion ... two actual arguments for keeping (JASpencer and Freder1ck)." Read that, please, and actually respond to it, tell me precisely where I'm wrong about the consensus, instead of claiming that all we're doing here is whining "it might be misused". — coelacan talk — 10:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and deleted; good arguments trump a headcount, but I see few good arguments on the 'keep' side of the debate (one is a plain "vote", one says "doesn't match the TFD criteria", one is circular). >Radiant< 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - there was clear consensus to delete; what is more, even if there hadn't been, XfD is not a vote and we should be encouraging editors to stay away from this kind of material at all costs. We simply should not be using this kind of POV pushing source, which run into a severe collision with WP:RS. Improper closure based on arguments and number crunching. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I did not vote in the deletion discussion, although I made I think three comments. I was hoping that the proponent(s) of the template would engage in discussion, which unfortunately did not happen before the vote was closed. Some of my objections have been addressed (now to be on talk page, text made more tentative by Stbalbach) but I still have not seen a convincing case for the retention of the template, if used en masse. The anon comment above, welcoming similar templates for all comparable encyclopedias, just makes me shudder. I am not criticising the admin, but in my own case, despite watching the page, the closure took me by surprise (I don't follow many of these & am not clear on the form), before I could vote - which would have been delete, as JASpencer, when he did finally comment, just chose to abuse those editors on the other side rather than argue the merits of the template. Johnbod 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there an equivalent of {{afdnewbies}} JASpencer 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see what the point of that would be. There aren't any single purpose accounts here. I notified everyone who commented in the Tfd but not here yet to give input here. That's why Freder1ck and Gimmetrow showed up here and endorsed closure. No one is merely "voting" here anyway; everyone is giving their comments on whether or not the consensus was observed and whether or not the Tfd was closed correctly. What exactly is the problem that you'd like to solve with that template? — coelacan talk — 20:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and Delete per the summary laid out by coelacan. Eusebeus 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete diddo. I'm somewhat new to the wikipedia, but I also thought there was consensus. Jeff Carr 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. I agree that the original voting yielded a supermajority for deleting; I do not agree that it yielded a consensus. As the discussion above shows, there are clearly 'unresolved issues'.

Both in the original argument and supra there were suggestions of making an improved and more general template for referring to old sources. If this is not done within a couple of months at the longest, I think that a new RfD is due and has greater chances of success.

As to the matter itself: IMO, a reference to available old sources on talk pages is far from automatically bad. Old sources should be used with caution, but so should new sources, and the older ones may be a means to balance the recentism bias.--JoergenB 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely nothing wrong with a simple list, "a reference to available old sources on talk pages". That is not what we are talking about here. The template functions as a requirement that the CE be used more, until it has been used "enough". I'm sorry, but your argument raises no new issues that the simple response of "use a plain text note with a signature instead" does not address. And you do not address any of the issues raised in this DRV or in the TFD concerning the appearance of official endorsement, the functional redundancy of using a template (see my response to Amarkov. above), nor the fact that there was not a supermajority but a clear consensus with every objection (that is, both objections) adequately addressed. Nor do you address the fact that even the closing admin endorses deletion by our NPOV and RS policies here,[22] and the only thing standing in the way of that is the counting of the votes and the weighing of the arguments. If two fifths of the keep votes were erroniously applied to the wrong template entirely, and one fifth had no argument, and the remaining arguments were refuted, then there can be no claim that consensus was anything but delete. — coelacan talk — 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Death By Gluten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

real, up and coming band, real info, real fans,real education, no one is being deceived or misleadBhatmaster 23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, speedy close DRV; AFD was followed correctly, the band remains nonnotable and not within miles of meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria. —Angr 23:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No new information (WP:RS, WP:INDY) in nomination, article met WP:CSD#A7 and consensus in the AFD was obvious. GRBerry 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion' - obvious failure of WP:MUSIC, not much else to say RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• I deleted the article. No assertion of notability. Many other bands exist solely to support a medical condition; see Startools which promotes upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage -- Samir धर्म 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Bhatmaster. "up and coming" speaks for itself. JuJube 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It doesn't mean the band doesn't exist, it simply means they don't meet inclusion criteria. See WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - per JuJube. On WP:AFC work, "up and coming" is always a give-away word for "non-notable". However, as to not dishearten you, please realize that a main reason I've rejected this is also because you provided no reason for undeletion above. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse deletion, no info or reason to undelete. --Coredesat 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm (genuinely) intolerant of gluten. You don't die from gluten by the way - you get osteoporosis. Spartaz 23:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, proper AfD process (in which the author of the article even states [t]he band does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines... !), and no evidence to the contrary or reason for overturn indicated above. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - still no indication of notability, in fact, just 3 relative ghits, and guess how many from myspace! SkierRMH,08:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, shouldn't even have gone to AfD. It's a textbook example of an A7 speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Operation Show Me How (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Operation Show Me How appeared on DYK on December 15, 2006 and was deleted on January 4, 2007 as not being notable. The article now is one of the few red linked DYK articles. Per Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other such that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. As I set out in more detail on the Operation Show Me How AfD talk page, the international Show Me How operation (i) was addressed in a Czech government confirmed report of the French non-governmental Observatoire geopolitique des drogues (OGD) organisation released on April 20, 2000, (ii) was mentioned in an April 20, 2000 news article by the United State government's World News Connection, and (iii) was detailed in an article in the June 15, 2000 Issue of CIO Magazine. Items (i) and (ii) are significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. Further, since enough source material appears to exist to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic, the topic appears to be notable. I am requesting that the original deletion decision be overturned. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. -- Jreferee 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, article went through the AFD process and was deleted properly. Please don't use DRV to rehash deletion discussions whose results you disagree with. —Angr 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• There may be a misunderstanding. I agree with the results of the AfD. However, I believe that I came across significant new information that was not available to those participating in the AfD. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article, which is the basis for my request. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. -- Jreferee 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion The original afd nomination focussed on the point that the claimed encyclopedic notability of Operation Show Me How as an especially important anti-drugs operation was unverified by sources (including the CIO magazine article which I uncovered myself during pre-nomination research). I took a look at Jreferee's presentation of new evidence. The origins of the Show Me How name is still a matter of totally unreferenced speculation. Proving the existence of a colouring book does not prove that a connection between the book and the operation name. And this is a marginal issue anyway. One (not two) new source is introduced - the article from the World News Connection database (a US govt. database of international news items, not a US govt service which produces news articles itself) which is said to discuss a French report which mentions the operation. (A link is provided which is supposed to go to the French anti-drugs organization which published the report, but it seems to go to a French academic centre for Latin American studies instead). But this is apparently a closed database, so I can only evaluate it currently on the basis of how it is described by Jreferee. Even overlooking this issue,I don't see how this information verifies that this operation is encyclopedically notable. The only information described as being in this source is the one line about Nigerians being arrested in the Czech Republic, and this helping to undermine drug gang activity in the Czech Republic. There isn't enough here to reopen the article, in my opinion. Bwithh 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've located an English language version of the April 2000 report by the (now defunct) French anti-drugs NGO. The relevant section on Nigerians in the Czech Republic can be found on p123 (pdf page 48) in this pdf file: [23]. There is no mention of "Show Me How" or the use of mail systems that was emphasized in the original article. I cannot find any mention of "Show Me How" in the rest of the report either[24] Bwithh 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• As closing admin, I'll have to echo Angr. DRV is to review violations of deletion process only. Nobody wanted to keep the article during the AfD discussion, so it was deleted. That's all there's to it. But thanks, Jreferee, for notifying me about this DRV! Sandstein 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there were substantial new evidence being introduced, the article could be reopened, but I'm not seeing that here. Bwithh 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• From what I can find, these are sources I can find on the subject: [25], [26], [27] . There isn't much. If Jreferee can provide some more useful links, we might get a short stub up, but not much more. Fresheneesz 22:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It'd be a short stub without a claim of encyclopedic notability - and we still even don't know how this is so special compared to other interpol operations (or indeed the operations actually mentioned in the French NGO report) Bwithh 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. Nothing technically wrong with the closure from the looks of things, but there's plenty that's been presented since then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see my commentary on the new source above, where I looked through Jreferee's presentation. There actually hasn't been much presented since the afd at all. The CIO article and passing mentions in interpol reports were already discussed in the afd (Fresheneeze brings up one Interpol report which I don't think I've seen before, in which the operation is given a passing mention along with another operation. This source does not add anything to the information presented in the afd. Here's another interpol report which gives slightly more detail with a paragraph in the middle of a list of other drugs operations[28]. The other two sources raised by Fresheneeze were discussed in the afd. There is still no evidence of encyclopedic notability, and very little is verified. Interpol is a major, leading international police organization. They run operations all the time.). I also ran a Factiva news database search too as mentioned in the afd nomination, in which nothing came up. Major drug bust successes (mostly non-encyclopedic in significance) are publicized in the news media. This operation, though it resulted in "numerous" seizures and arrests, wasn't. As I noted on the day of the DYK listing, this was a poor article choice for DYK, and it remains so. Bwithh 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't AfD, in any regard, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much for your abrupt comment, but I'm entirely within DRV bounds, I believe. My argument is based on the petitioner's evidence page which he put together specifically for this DRV discussion which pivots on assessing if sufficient new evidence has arisen. Are you suggesting that we should relist articles just because someone has put together a new evidence page without any assessment of the evidence page? I treated the petitioner seriously and even went ahead and found the report from the defunct organization for him. The petitioner's argument for relisting is based on his belief he has found several pieces of substantial new evidence. I don't believe he has. The French report he references does not mention the Operation at all. The news article about this French report which is also mentioned is in a closed database, and the way he describes it does not sound it is a substantial article. The magazine article was discussed in the original afd. Another piece of evidence is just speculation about the colouring book. Of the references provided by Freesheneeze, I point out that two of the refs were already discussed in the original afd, and the third I didn't think had significantly more information. Bwithh 13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • We can certainly disagree on the validity of the sources, if these were presented at the AfD had I seen it, I likely would have suggested keeping. The simple fact remains that there is significant new material, and it should be relisted and discussed on those grounds. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Badlydrawnjeff. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - correct closure (though the closing admin probably could have done a bit more research given the scant talk), but, given new evidence, overturn. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - correctly closed, and no substantive new evidence presented here. A single bullet point in a 196-page report is trivial. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist per Jreferee to allow for further consideration. Yamaguchi先生 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. New evidence is new evidence. If it isn't good enough, it still won't survive AfD (in theory). — coelacan talk — 06:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was speedied on spurious grounds. Administrator who deleted article unresponsive to request from me to put article to an ordinary AFD meco 15:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I simply haven't had enough time to respond yet. There are a number of things I was behind on, this was one of them. Anyway, I'll be happy to undelete it and submit it to AfD, which moots this request. - crz crztalk 15:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Much appreciated. __meco 16:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tales of the Questor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Disagree with the reason for deletion (non-notabilty) and the manner of deletion (speedy).

This webcomic has been running for 5 years, several hundred strips and 2 print collections. The whole thorny issue of Wikipedia:Notability is one that may be argued over for years but as I've mentioned with regard to By The Saints I feel that editors are overzealous in deleting on the grounds of 'non-notabilty' especially when it comes to webcomics.

Tales Of The Questor is the best webcomic I have ever seen, so why do lousy comics like "Darken" get an article? This comic is not un-notable, so why? Amitabho Chattopadhyay 03:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At least By the Saints had an AfD review, but the Tales of the Questor article, after at least two years online, was speedily deleted by User:Naconkantari on 3 January. I feel that speedy deletion in cases such as this goes completely against the grain of Wikipedia's democratic ideals. If an article is considered for deletion those involved in editing the article should have some say in the matter. Otherwise it looks as if any Admin can come along, look at an article and say "I don't like that, let's just dump it". Lee M 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (until the history is brought back up, I can't make a decision) Usually A7 is performed if 1) there are no statement as to how an article meets the notability criteria (running for 5 years, which plenty of webcomics meet, several hundred strips, which plenty of webcomics meet, and 2 print collections - less comics meet this criterion, but still a significant number) in WP:WEB. In addition, are there any reliable sources that would validate the contents in the article? ColourBurst 16:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

History restored for review. GRBerry 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with speedy deletion. If all web comics that have been running for even only 6 months with regular updates were included in wikipedia with an article as good as this one has, I would be one happy wikipedia reader. --Acewolf359 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion. It was correctly speedied per WP:CSD#A7 because it didn't assert any notability. You may recreate it with an appropriate, sourced claim to notability per WP:N or WP:WEB. Sandstein 16:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as deleting admin. Article did not assert notability. Naconkantari 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree with speedy deletion. It should not only not have been speedily deleted (ie such a long lasting article should at least get a review) but it should not be deleted at all. The first print collection won the 2005 Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work (though that is not noted on the wikipedia page, the wikifur entry [29] mentions it). ToTQ has also been the subject of significant "fan fiction" activity in the Comic Genesis forums which means it has enough of a following to draw committed artistic groupies. That would also make it notable. One went so far as to start an fan created animation [30] though that project seems to not be moving forward much. Recap, won a fan award, long-running comic, has seen print not once but twice (and Ralph Hayes Jr. shows enough signs of poor financial condition that these are not mere vanity prints, he lives from his comic income) and has created a stable of writers who produce derivative works making ToTQ the founding artistic work in what some call the "Questorverse". I would say that the article does need some work but the appropriate solution for that is to mark it as a stub article, not kill it outright without even a review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC).
• Endorse without prejudice. The article in history does not assert -- or even mention -- any of the justifications against (speedy) deletion that have been raised here. Without comment regarding the merits of those arguments, admins cannot be expected to react to articles on the basis of information about the topic that is not in those articles. Serpent's Choice 08:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - as disagrees have been nothing more tha WP:ILIKEIT. No proof that webcomic is notable. Give me something to work with here, so I can say relist. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Regardless of the outcome of this review, I would like to see an end to the use of speedy deletion in the case of long-standing articles. Lee M 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the article wasn't protected, I would have simply added the award, which makes it notable, as well as probably improved the article in general. It's understandable that some of the early commentors might not have done their homework before commenting but after being notified that this is an award winner and given a link to an article demonstrating this, those early endorse comments should be discounted as being essentially uninformed. I would like to protest the idea that deletion is an appropriate response to an article that is notable but its notability was not included in the article to date. The emergence of notability means that the article should be restored and improved so that it includes the elements that make it notable. TMLutas 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to improve it, just ask the deleting admin. -- Dragonfiend 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Woah, woah, woah. Nominated by NeoChaosX and then, less then a minute later, Speedy Deleted closed with the rationale "speedy delete" by NeoChaosX. Doesn't appear to be eligable for WP:SPEEDY. Is this kosher? Ryanbomber 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and restore AfD discussion. It was in fact deleted by User:Jimfbleak, but that was not kosher. WP:WINAD isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. Sandstein 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, it's rare that I invoke WP:SNOW but as an unsourced and unsourcable dicdef apparently made up somewhere, I can't see this surviving AfD, where even if it was sourced it would only be transwikied. A Google search for Jamify doesn't turn up anything like a reliable source, I couldn't even find any unreliable sources (blogs, MySpace, etc) that used the word the way the article used it. If we go by Google, "jamify" seems to predominantly mean "to make into jam". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it probably wouldn't survive, but speedy deleting one's own nomination isn't exactly a precident I want to see set. -Ryanbomber 13:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? He created an AfD, then decided that the article was speediable instead. What's wrong with changing your mind, particularly when your second impression is the right one? Anyway, he didn't speedy delete it, an admin had to do that, and the admin could easily have declined the speedy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Because he didn't give a valid reason for WP:CSD. -Ryanbomber 13:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we've got it wrong. NeoChaosX did not add a speedy tag to the article. I don't think he had anything to do with the speedy deletion - when he saw that the article had been speedy deleted by an uninvolved admin, he closed the AfD, which is perfectly proper. I'll ask him so we can sort this out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument, Sam, amounts to introducing a new speedy deletion criterion called "anything which would in the deleting admin's judgement not survive AfD". I wouldn't even be opposed to that, but the place to find consensus for that is WP:CSD. Sandstein 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual criterion is "Anything which would in the deleting admin's judgement not survive DRV". As I've said, WP:SNOW is not something I feel the need to cite often, but occasionally it's relevant, and most of the time such speedy deletions don't arrive at DRV. This DRV seems to me about a mistaken impression (that the AfD nominator was involved in the speedy deletion) and doesn't really have a reason why this article should be restored. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion Sam Blanning is correct that the history (log of article, history of AFD) shows the article was deleted by Jimfbleak before NeoChaosX even finished writing his AFD nomination. Any objection has to be to the speedy deletion by Jimfbleak. The deletion log also shows a speedy deletion an hour and a half earlier by Daniel Olson citing WP:WINAD. Now, neither neologism nor dictionary definition is a speedy criteria, and "not a dictionary" and "neologism" are specifically called out at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria as not being a basis for speedy deletion; in the case of a neologism specifically because it needs wider input. But when I do a google search, I get (jamify - Wikipedia) I get no reliable sources, 39 uniques (including domain names for sale, people w/ a name of jamify, etc...) out of 236 total. So despite my bias towards extra process, this doesn't stand a chance at AFD, so I endorse the deletion because the extra process isn't worth it. GRBerry 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will confirm that Sam Blanning is correct - I found the article, realized it didn't fall under a CSD category and began setting up an AFD; but when I was finished writing the AfD report it had already been speedied, so I closed the AfD. I'm no admin, so I'm not the one who deleted it. However, I do agree that the word deserves a legit chance at AfD, although a Google search suggested to me it wouldn't have a chance. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions of unsourced slang dicdefs. Why waste more of everyone's time than we need to? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse; this wasn't a by-the-book deletion, but the result is going to be the same no matter what. This word will never be a Wikipedia article. —Angr 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Not a speedy candidate, period. If people are gonna be lame and invoke WP:SNOW, then this just became controversial. Let it run its time and see what comes up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I will bet you £10 via Paypal that absolutely nothing comes up to suggest that "jamify" is a notable word covered by independent reliable sources that can be written about beyond a dicdef. (Wouldn't DRV would be much more fun if we made it a rule that if you want to take up editors' time with an AfD, we should feel the fibre of your fabric?) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I might lose, so no. d;-) What might happen is of zero consequence here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Where did people ever get the idea that you're allowed to invoke WP:SNOW on what you expect will happen? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the only way you can invoke it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's one thing to have a large pile of people saying one thing and go "Well, continuing this is pointless". It's quite another to have nobody saying anything, because it hasn't even been discussed, and go "Well, I expect that opinions will be X, so I will act as if that is the conclusion". With one, you have at least something to go off of. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I realize that this isn't going to win in an AFD. But the point is that it didn't even get a chance. WP:CSD states several things that SHOULD NOT be used to speedy delete something, and this article qualifies for several of them. Just because something will lose doesn't mean it should be deleted outright. Fifth amendment, due process, and all that. -Ryanbomber 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not have a fifth amendment, and is not a bureaucracy. Since we realize that this isn't going to win in an AFD, there really is no point in undeleting it and sending it there anyway. So Endorse. >Radiant< 15:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Dicdefs usually fall under CSD A1. Slang words that have no chance of becoming an encyclopedic article rather than a dictionary article, won't survive AFD anyway. Because WINAD may not be a speedy criteria, but it is a valid reason for regular deletion, which is rarely contested by experienced users. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong overturn and restore afd Are you kidding me? A1 says "little context", and that's quite an interpretation of a dicdef. WP:CSD clearly states that neologisms are not a criterion for speedy deletion. If we allow this, it should only be under the pretense that we ought to change WP:CSD to allow speedy deletion of dicdefs. Otherwise, it's giving a carte blanche to any admin to delete what they wish. All this said, the afd will be obvious delete, so the result will be the same - let's just make sure we do it right.
• Endorse status quo. We're in the right place, but we got here the wrong way. Must try harder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Radiant, Angus McLellan, and others. Process errors are not automatic reversals if the result is clearly correct. Eluchil404 05:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Namir Deiter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Namir Deiter was speedily deleted for non-notability last week. I contend that it this was unwarranted. Comic was published in book form by Studio Ironcat, was nominated for an Ursa Major award, and has been around over seven years. I don't feel that it is patently non-notable and deserves a proper AfD vote, if not restoration. Terra Misu 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. The article was deleted, and correctly so, for not asserting any notability. If you ask them to, the deleting admin might restore it to your user space so that you can recreate it in a form that meets WP:N or WP:WEB. Sandstein 13:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The only source from the google cached article is a Comixpedia interview. I can't find reliable sources on the comic or its author with google other than comixpedia. ColourBurst 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as deleting admin. Article did not assert notability. Naconkantari 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn: and list on AfD. In light of the nominator's statements it should go to AfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to improve it, just ask the deleting admin. -- Dragonfiend 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn The article does mention a book, published Studio Ironcat, who was a well-known publisher of manga and comics before they shut down. That meets WP:WEB #3. Terra Misu 07:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn For the same reasons as cited above. The deleting admin appears to have an axe to grind against all webcomics. Kevin Standlee 08:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and AFD. Publication by an established if small publishing company suggests a level of notability, and thus should not have been deleted as an A7. It could stand more discussion by a greater group of editors and the opportunity for improvement. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The Suburban Jungle was also speedily deleted for non-notability. Contending notability in the form of publication in book format by Plan 9 Publishing, Ursa Major nomination, Shortbread Award, and article itself was listed in WP:WCXD's "Articles that kick ass" category. I don't feel that it is patently non-notable and deserves a proper AfD vote, if not restoration. Terra Misu 12:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7, same case as Namir Deiter above. Sandstein 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as deleting admin. Article did not assert notability. Naconkantari 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Going through your deletion logs, I see that you deleted four other articles within a minute of this one. How much consideration did you give this article before deciding that it didn't assert notability? What are you looking for as an "assertion of notability"? --Nekura 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn – speedy deletion was in this case in obvious violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, as article was neither obvious rubbish nor obviously non-notable, and therefore deserved review under AfD. Robin Z 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - if the whole issue is about the assertion of notability, rather then the notability itself, it should have been tagged, rather then speedily deleted. It deserves a AfD vote at the least. --Nekura 21:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, under WP:WEB: "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: ... 3: The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Plan 9 Publishing is an independent, online publisher. --Nekura 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD - while I feel Naconkantari is a good admin and generally has good judgment, I think this and the other webcomics that were rapid-fire deleted should at least have had more discussion before being vaporized. As pointed out above, this does have claims of notability under WP:WEB and should be evaluated by a greater group of editors on those claims. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Nekura & Tony Fox. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to improve it, just ask the deleting admin. -- Dragonfiend 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Notable for being the prequel to Scary Go Round. Either a vote or merging is requested. Terra Misu 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7, same case as Namir Deiter above. Sandstein 13:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion as deleting admin. Article did not assert notability. Naconkantari 16:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list on AfD: if an article doesn't assert notability, it should at least be tagged with {{notability}}. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Coment: Strip is a nominee of several Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards and a National Comics Awards. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. If someone wants it userfied so they can try to improve it, just ask the deleting admin, -- Dragonfiend 04:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Artificial snow.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|IfD)

Image had fair use rationale, and was deleted as replaceable. I don't think its replaceable because I uploaded the image specifically to show readers the difference between (magnified) natural snow crystals and man-made snow particles - which requires a magnified view of the man-made snow. Obviously if a free version is found or made, it can replace the fair use image. Until then, I think the image is quite useful, useful enough to keep it anyway. Fresheneesz 05:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you provide a few more details? Specifically, where did the image come from and what article was it being used in? Thanks. --BigDT 06:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm the deleting admin. The image did not have a fair-use rationale, it just said "This picture should be used until a free close-up photograph of artificial snow is found", which isn't really an explanation of why the image qualifies as fair use. In answer to BigDT, it came from http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class.htm and was being used in Snow. I agree this image isn't as easily replaceable as a photograph of a building or bridge, but neither is it so very unlikely that either there's a Wikipedian with access to a snow cannon and magnifying equipment to take a freely licensed picture, or that some branch of the U.S. government doesn't already have a magnified image of artificial snow that's in the public domain. As ever, a fair use image is replaceable if a free equivalent could be made, even if such a free equivalent has not yet been made or found. —Angr 09:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Angr. Thank you for clarifying. I should point out, Fresheneesz, that on the source website's copyright page - http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/copyright/copyright.htm - they seem somewhat agreeable to allowing others to use their images. If you email them to ask, they may be willing to release one under the GFDL. (Please note that simply having permission to use it for non-commercial purposes or having permission to use it on Wikipedia is not enough - it needs to be released under a "free" license, such as the GFDL.) Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information and at the bottom, there is a sample letter that you can use. I strongly suggest giving it a shot - this is an edu website, so there is an educational mission there and they will likely at least listen. --BigDT 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One further comment - take a look at Commons:Snow. There are a number of pictures of snow crystals there and one of those may suit your needs. --BigDT 12:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked, but no man-made snow pics. Fresheneesz 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:SNOW. Just had to say it :) Without prejudice, per Angr. >Radiant< 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My fault about the fair use rationale (or lackthereof), I had thought I provided rationale, but since I can't see this history.. well I couldn't remember. I still think that fair use rationale can be made up, and think its a good case of fair use. However, I'll contact the site and see if they can release the one picture under a free license. Fresheneesz 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Orca (supercar) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

Was AFD closed as delete against consensus that it was notable and a real car project (it has appeared at multiple trade shows). Reason given was that article is unsourced, which was largely true, but that's a repairable defect for which AFD policy recommends tagging and repairing, not deleting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orca (supercar) (also, google search on "Orca C113" finds over 12,000 car enthusiast references...) Georgewilliamherbert 23:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• What's with Administrators believing that their judgement can override several others, then delete, erasing all evidence. I see roving, rash summary executioners. SmokeyJoe 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While Jimbo's "unsourced material should be aggressively removed" was specifically directed at WP:BLP issues, we shouldn't keep things just on the basis that people assert that they are real, so sources might appear at some undetermined point in the future. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So why not give the authors a time period to complete their article? SmokeyJoe 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article was around for 29 days before an AfD was created, which serves as a "time to make this an article" five-day warning, easily long enough to find sources at the very least (currently, custom doesn't even require that they be used in the article). The "time period" that you ask for totals one month, three days. Does it really take over a month to expand an article on something notable beyond a sentence? If only I could apply such standards to my coursework, I would probably have moved on from this earth before the deadlines came around. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are 12,000 plus google hits for car enthusiasts talking about it, and hundreds of driving and car show photos of it. The question of whether it's real or not is ludicrous at this point. It's not (yet) "Wikipedia Reliably Sourced", true, but that's different than it not being real. Georgewilliamherbert 23:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, so what if it is real? I am most certainly real. My name gets three million google hits, and my account name 10,000. That doesn't mean there are reliable sources on me. And pictures are not sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• UK Channel 4 car review program of the Orca C113 - WP reliable source. Still looking. Georgewilliamherbert 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I do admit that seems like a pretty good source. So recreate it then; why is it necessary that the old version, which was bad, get undeleted? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seriously, I cannot comprehend the amount of energy that has been wasted over an article that says, in its entirety, "The Orca SC7 debuted in 2005 boasting 850 bhp and powered by an Audi V8-engine." That, frankly, qualifies for an A7 speedy. Anyone feel like creating an actual article on it? Go right ahead. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I get the feeling from things like this that nobody will ever make some of these articles good, but they should still of course be kept, because someone might add sources! -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid A7 and correct AfD closing, either one is enough for deletion, let alone both. If an article can be created that is verified by reliable sources, then create it, because it would be ludicrous to expect that it would be General-4ed by this deletion of a single vapid sentence. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Wasn't too hard to find sources, new stub created, we're done here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Walking Cradles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|AfD)

It's not an advertisement

I see no difference in terms of written information between this page and the other shoe company pages I've seen on Wikipedia - which I researched and looked into before posting this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shoe_companies

Do you simply not allow information about small companies? Is that the issue? If so, please realize that the shoe industry is a very small world. The reason I'm putting this up on Wikipedia specifically is because of the number of designers-in-training that are ending up on our site, both from the US and internationally. It's far easier for them to be able to go down a list of shoe manufacturers and see if the company makes the kind of products they want to design than it is to go to each individual website, or such was my thinking. As you can see reading the article, the information presented specifically tells young designers what they need to know about this line. Isn't that part of the purpose of Wikipedia?

If the size of the company is the issue, then I strongly feel you need to rethink that policy, particularly when you're talking about this sort of industry. My next entry was going to be on Ars Sutoria, but if Wikipedia is just going to delete it, then I won't waste my time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tres chic (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion. The way you word your statement leaves me absolutely no doubt. Wikipedia is not here to be convenient for your company, nor for your customers. We're here to be an encyclopedia. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Sorry, Tres chic, but Amarkov is right. And judging by what I can find on the web, it would be virtually impossible to write an article on Ars Sutoria which met our verifiability and sourcing guidelines. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)\
• endorse delete per Amarkov, I dont think the company meets WP:CORP. --mathewguiver 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. It's not that we don't allow information on small companies, it's that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means information needs to come from third-party reliable sources. If there are any, please mention them. ColourBurst 01:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)