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

• Link to CfD: 12 Sep

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

• Comment I cannot see how one Australian editors opinion for or against can be seen to be adequate for such a move - and it simply reinforces the problem as noted by Orderinchaos above - in relation to the issues referred to SatuSuro 09:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and preferably do not relist Agree totally - that this is a extraordinarily weak consensus at best. Indeed it should be asked if the closer understands that a relisting to allow for further time to seek input is possible? However when the nominators facts regarding a similar request in May are taken into account - this closure goes directly against the wider consensus and should be relisted (but only if necessary) for appropriate feedback from the editors at the relevant project.--VS ^talk 11:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist the changes affect 584 articles, three people cant be considered a change in consensus from the May discussion, which wasnt noted in the nomination. Gnangarra 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus in May was against changing "National parks" to "National Parks". There was consensus to change "of" to "in", which you even agreed with: national parks should be at 'in state' ie 'National parks in Western Australia' rather than 'of state' [1] So seeing as you appear to agree with the change made here, why the overturn? --Kbdank71 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • My comment is a question of the process and the way in which proceeded, while I may agree with the change DRV is about the process. This process failed due to the lack of notification and lack of identification of previous discussions, obviously there are sufficient editors who feel they werent able to participate in the discussion, hence overturn relist. Gnangarra 23:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this had been the consensus, a rename would have occurred to "in" at that point. However, it was rejected, and the latest attempt was snuck in by the back door - there was no effort made at all to notify anyone that the debate was occurring. A similar effort to evade process this week using the "speedy" process, which explicitly contravened the May CfD, has since been overturned. One wonders why users who believe in changes and their defensibility would fear robust debate. Orderinchaos 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, no. It was rejected because "There's too much opposition to this excessively complicated and confusing nomination." If you actually read the discussion, there is consensus for in over of. Just because the closer didn't act on that doesn't mean consensus wasn't there. As for robust debate, I have no problem at all with it. One wonders why you insist on putting words in my mouth. How about we stick to the merits of the CFD? --Kbdank71 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could ask, "what merits, exactly?" but will avoid the temptation. Orderinchaos 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, per the above, a very weak consensus for such a wide-ranging change, especially given the prior consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse as closer, no opinion on relisting if desired. "Weak" or "strong" consensus is not based upon the number of people in the discussion, it's how many people agree with the outcome. And based upon the discussion, there was not only consensus, it was unanimous. --Kbdank71 16:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - CFD was open for the full five days and everyone who cared to comment agreed with the rename. There is no minimum number of participants required to achieve consensus and the consensus here was unanimous in favor of the rename. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not notified anywhere, so those affected by the change had no idea that the debate was occurring. See [2] Orderinchaos 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and do not relist per the comments made by Mattinbgn and Virtual Steve. It boggles my mind that three people, all of whom appear to be residents of North America and clearly have no knowledge of local Australian language usage, terminology and customs should be trying to force such a change through in the face of such strong objections from the local editors and administrators who are actually the ones working with these categories. I also don't support making global rules and I think these sorts of issues with categories should be treated in the usual way we deal with language usage and peculiarities, i.e. consistency, national ties, etc. It is also rather disappointing to see an administrator cracking snarky gags in unrelated discussions at the expense of a very prolific and hard working project. [3]. An apparently "humourless" Australian... Sarah 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Her death was big news in Hong Kong, as the tree that killed her was goverment property and was one of hundreds of historical trees. Now are you trying to say that anything that happens there is not big news at all by deleting that article Banana Jim (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ehm, this looks to me to be a simple case of WP:BIO1E. If we've got an article on the event, a mention there would be good. But beyond that she doesn't appear notable, important, or anything of the sort. I could go either way on the A7. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty clear WP:BLP1E / WP:NOTNEWS case. It's always sad when people die unexpectedly, but not every accidental death is something that an encyclopedia can cover. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per WP:BLP1E. Demonstrate through reliable sources that she was notable before a tree fell on her. ALso suggest the nominator assume good faith rather than decide that editors don't care about what happens in HK. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/list at AfD BLP1E is about living people. NOTNEWS might be relevant, but one might be able to make a case that there was enough impact from her death for it to not be just a news event. That's precisely the sort of issue that should be determined at AfD, not DRV. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Andrew above, but allow a soft redirect to Wikinews if people think that will help readers of the enccylopaedia to find the news story. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Daniel (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As far as I'm concerned we can discuss here the actual deletion as well as how to proceed. I'd overturn and restore as there was sufficient assertion of importance. Here is a working link to the mentioned Associated Press note in IHT [4].--Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion no real notability presented, and what is there is deliberately vague to the point of bordering on outright falsehood. For example, the claimed "relationship with the Smithsonian" mentioned above consisted of his donating his webcam and keyboard. Anyone can donate anything at all to the Smithsonian, and there's no evidence they even accepted it, much less put it on display (it certainly doesn't appear in their database). While not a factor in deletion, I must point out the article's abhorrant speculation that he committed suicide, "sourced" to (drumroll, please...) a blog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore . Clearly not an A7--definite and unmistakable assertions of notability. I think it will even hold at Afd, given the sources for notability from the NYT and the AP,. DGG (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rather than respond to the accusations that I am being "deliberately vague to the point of bordering on outright falsehood," I'll remember to assume good faith and simply state that my opinion is obviously to overturn. AniMate 05:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OVERTURN and restore. The NY Times seems to think he's notable enough. Perhaps someone's heard of them?--Feddx (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG OVERTURN AND RESTORE Significant coverage in the New York Times and the Associated Press details a pioneering career in Net-based journalism and production. Deleting this was a mistake. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Plenty good enough sources for a non-living person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Credible assertions of notability accompanied by multiple reliable and verifiable sources available make the speedy deletion out of process. Alansohn (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]