Category:Jewish American businesspeople (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The category was deleted a while back. I believe that it should be restored for two reasons. For one, many other Jewish occupations, including some with a lower population of pages, have their own categories. For two, this discussion indicates that it and several other related categories originally deleted in error or without consensus, and I can find no record of a proper CfD discussion on the topic (the deletion rationale links to the category itself, not a CfD or other discussion). I messaged the original deleting admin, but he is apparently on a wikibreak Purplebackpack89 21:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• question- is there a deletion discussion? I see it was deleted twice on G4, but I'm not seeing a discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be here. I've placed it above, as well. lifebaka++ 00:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen would be correct, since both "Jewish" and "American" are being used as adjectives. I don't see the need to have a separate discussion about the unhyphenated version. Is there any reason to believe that the above unanimous discussion is to be questioned? Chick Bowen 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is four years old, and, judging by the prevelance of other Jewish-American categories (e.g. Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:Jewish American artists), consensus has changed in the ensuing period against the over-categorization argument. Also note comment about G4 possibly being in error on the Category talk for the next level above. In the four years, the naming conventions have also changed Purplebackpack89 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, I'm not sure we've returned to categorizing businesspeople by ethnicity. (For example, there isn't a Category:Italian-American businesspeople or a Category:Indian-American businesspeople.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I think the consensus on such pages has probably changed. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Deletion was perfectly in order, and that ancient discussion in no way "indicates that it and several other related categories originally deleted in error or without consensus". In fact, the person who asked that they be recreated was eventually permanently banned for continual BLP-violation and disruption on this topic. While some such categories do exist, many others have been rightly deleted as overcategorizations. Also, the consensus on such pages hasn't changed, which is why there aren't any Category:Italian-American businesspeople etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the harm in relisting? The page you cite was deleted over a year ago and without a community-wide discussion; it's reaching to say that "consensus hasn't changed" based solely on that discussion. PS: The banned argument is fallacious, just because a user is banned doesn't mean everything he said or did is wrong Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CfDs don't - and will never - get community-wide consensus. Bulldog123 23:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I was referring to is the fact that I-A businessmen was closed without a CfD at all, and therefore it's impossible to gauge what consensus is from that most recent deletion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Italian American business would never make a viable article and neither would Jewish American business. I'm not sure what there is to discuss at CfD. We tend to avoid categorizing people by ethnicity and occupation unless there's a phenomenon involving the two. Otherwise it loses any encyclopedic value. Also I believe that this is a better gauge of consensus that the recent CfDs on similar topics -- which suggest only a consensus among special-interest and Wikiproject-oriented users (i.e., a small sect of users that regularly edit those particular topics). For a community-wide consensus, why not open a discussion at Village Pump? Bulldog123 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the page you pointed out, the editors who comment both appear to be in favor of creation of more categories. There are other things to consider, such as where the parent category is unweildy, and at this point Category:American Jews most certainly is. You also have to consider. For articles, may I suggest List of Jewish American businesspeople or List of Italian American business people perhaps, not that having or not having an article equates with having or not having a category. And as I've said, there are numerous other Jewish-American categories, some of which don't have much of a "phenomenon". I'm not sure phenomenon is the right word, nor do I think it appropriate to define "phenomenon", as I feel that it would very easily be offensive. I personally would avoid classifying any discussion as "special-interest-oriented". Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. We can't keep on enforcing four-year-old deletion discussions blindly. After such a passage of time, a fresh discussion is warranted.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Per nom and S Marshall and DGG -- I also think that after four years, having seen similar CFD discussions, consensus may not be as it was four years ago.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted I usually side with Epeefleche on these sort of lists, but this sort of thing has to have a cut-off point somewhere. How about “Category:List of balding, middle-aged white guys afraid of change”? Or “Category:Jewish physicists who helped on the Manhattan Project”? Or “Category:Wikipedians who don’t have a life”? When the answer is “A mind-boggling list comprising pretty much alll of ‘em”, it’s time to give it a break.

  The litmus test isn’t whether editors are interested in writing these sort of articles or tagging articles to create categories, but whether the resultant list would plausibly be of any real value to our readership—other than being a curiosity to go look at for amusement. Category:Jewish American businesspeople could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia.

  In short, I agree with Jayjg and his point about Category:Italian-American businesspeople; if we head down in earnest on this sort of endeavor, editors will look back at 2011 as being the “fiasco of people category-based lists”. Greg L (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa...whoa...whoa...slipperyslope fallacy all over the place Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am generally intolerant of “slippery slope”-based arguments because they are often abused by those afraid of change. Invariably, those opposed to whites marrying blacks in the U.S. South in the 1950s and those opposed to gay unions relied upon (and they still do) arguments that ended up with people in bed with goats and 5 year olds (although, if the goat is happy and smoking a cigarette afterwards, I don’t much care about that scenario either).

  Interestingly, I didn’t raise a slippery-slope argument above. I didn’t suggest that Category:Jewish American businesspeople was inappropriate because it could lead to those other categories; I mentioned those other categories as humorous exaggeration in hopes it would be easier for others here to recognize the reasoning underlying why Category:Jewish American businesspeople is already inappropriate. As I already mentioned above, that category in and of itself could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia. It is too much of a pure list and is of too little notable value. It would be a mere curio and no-doubt the source of endless and protracted bickering over BLP issues, notability, and what constitutes an RS.

  And, to make you happy about being right all along over my raising a “slipper-slope” argument, I’ll oblige you: were we to add this turd to the front lawn, other dog owners will inevitably follow suit. Greg L (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree strongly with Greg L. In short -- while he says that there has to be a cut-off point "somewhere" (which perhaps is a statement that could bear discussion in and of itself), IMHO Greg L fails to indicate why the cut-off point should be where he places it. To my mind, we do have a way of determining where that cut-off point should be. And that tool allows us to address the problem in a manner that avoids the "IDONTLIKEIT" and "POV" trap. That is the long-honored wp tradition of looking to RS coverage of an intersection. If the intersection is not mentioned in RSs, then it is not notable for wp purposes. If, on the other hand, it is covered in RSs -- then it is notable for wp purpose. Here, the RS coverage is such that IMHO it pushes the intersection onto the "notable" side of the dividing line. We have news articles such as "JEWISH BUSINESSMAN GETS HATE MAIL", "GIVE $330,000 FOR PALESTINE; Jewish Business Men Meet Rosalsky's Appeal at Dinner", "Anti-Jewish business bias being probed, Ford says" and "RABBI I. M. WISE'S FUNERAL.; All Jewish Business Houses in Cincinnati Will Close To-day", as well as books entitled Jewish wisdom for business success: lessons from the Torah and other ancient texts and The Economy in Jewish History: New Perspectives on the Interrelationship Between Ethnicity and Economic Life, and a magazine entitled Jewish Business Magazine. When we have similar robust media coverage of “Category:List of balding, middle-aged white guys afraid of change”, we can of course have a cat for that as well, but we do not yet seem to have reached that point.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What’s with that first link, Epeefleche?? From Click2Houston: Woman Robbed Inside Walmart. Ergo, Category:List of really fat women wearing fluorescent green short-shorts who get robbed at Wal‑Mart? ^(Disclaimer) Greg L (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Greg, your sarcasm and fallacious arguments carry no weight. "Jews" and "business" are commonly used together, there is a connotation (albeit a politically incorrect one that most people, including me, find slightly offensive) associated with Jews and business, the parent categories are huge and could due with diffusion, and the category would be sufficiently large. Your fat Walmart example easily fails my last two reasons, and most likely fails the first two as well. I know you've said you're not making a slippery slope argument, but if saying we allow this category is going to lead to more and more ridiculous categories and eventually total chaos isn't a slippery-slope argument, then what is it? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting you: Greg, your sarcasm and fallacious arguments carry no weight. Really?? Oh… well… (darn) I thought I had a point. Just pardon me all over the place for not recognizing you were one of those *logic gods* who makes factual statements like that. BTW, you might chill a bit here; it’s about whether or not to bring back a category. I’ve been motivated on Wikipedia’s topics before, but this one isn’t getting my panties in a bunch. I’m not finding myself persuaded by the Winston Churchill-like eloquence of your above argument and am disinclined to change my !vote. Sorry. Speaking of Winston Churchill, I am reminded by this thread of an interaction between Lady Astor and Winston Churchill: She told him “If I were your wife I'd poison your coffee,” to which Churchill replied: “If I were your husband, madam, I would drink it.” Greg L (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Greg's point is my point, actually. Once there are books, magazine articles, and newspaper articles devoted to the cat he identifies, it will be notable. A one-off article is not the same as robust RS coverage, which is what we have with the intersection that is currently under consideration. If "men who picked their toes in Poughkeepsie" get that coverage, we should support its notability as well. The "x" doesn't matter -- it is the coverage that is key.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per my comment above, in part, but particularly per the following comment by Greg L: "The litmus test isn’t whether editors are interested in writing these sort of articles or tagging articles to create categories, but whether the resultant list would plausibly be of any real value to our readership—other than being a curiosity to go look at for amusement. Category:Jewish American businesspeople could never be sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia." I really couldn't say it better myself. The chief consideration with respect to categories should be value to our readers, not notability. I'm completely unconvinced that this category would be helpful to our readers at all, and, frankly, contending that "consensus may not be as it was four years ago" does not change my mind in the slightest. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The way we get around the POV and OR inherent in comments like "I'm completely unconvinced that this category would be helpful to our readers at all", is we look at RS coverage. Otherwise, we just have a bunch of editors saying "I think x" and "I don't think x" -- with nothing objective behind their statements. As would be the case here, as I think it would be helpful to our readers. Happily, the guidelines give us a way to avoid wasting out time in such subjective disputes. Instead of looking inside our hearts and guessing as to whether editors will "find it helpful", we look to whether the RSs cover the intersection and use that as our proxy.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Respectfully, WP:OR and WP:POV are content policies that deal with articles and their content. This is a deletion review, and deletion reviews are all about expressing personal points of view (that is, about deleted materials and decisions about them). And my point of view is that this category would not be useful to readers, just as your point of view is quite the opposite.

  In any case, it's clear that you think my judgment call is insufficient here, and it is your right to think so. But I think your method of deciding that this category would be useful to readers is just as subjective as mine. Sure, reliable sources cover the intersection. So? That tells me that List of Jewish American businesspeople is notable. It does not tell me that this category would be useful; in order to show me that the category would be useful, you would need to demonstrate somehow that it could be "sufficiently comprehensive to be of any real value in an encyclopedia." Unless you can do that, I'm sticking with my subjective judgment (and I imagine that you will stick with yours). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually see it differently. Deletions made on the basis of OR and POV are not appropriate at AfD. They therefore must be similarly inappropriate at deletion review. To hold otherwise would be akin to saying in the real world: "evidence found in illegal searches is inadmissible at trial, but admissible on appeal".

Furthermore, given the above points we don't even have to get to the additional argument (as otherstuffexists is fine for additional arguments) that touches on the existence of other category intersections. Such as the following -- with luck, this intersection might generate as much interest as the following cats. Which may perhaps not even have quite the same amount of RS coverage as the cat at issue -- Category:American Samoan businesspeople, Category:Angolan businesspeople, Category:French Polynesian businesspeople, Category:Kyrgyzstani businesspeople, Category:São Tomé and Príncipe businesspeople, Category:Seychellois businesspeople, and Category:Turkmenistan businesspeople.

Finally, we don't look to notability -- as reflected in the objective fact of coverage in RSs -- for lists, but throw that out the window and rely instead for cats on POV gut feelings. I'm sticking with the broad RS coverage reflecting notability, which (as luck would have it) is the same thing that underlies whether an article could be written. Here you have books, magazines, and news articles on the intersection ... that is objective indicia of notability, and is exactly what we look for in determining the appropriateness of material of all manner existing on the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I have not participated much at CfD. My impression was that, unlike AfD, where objective verifiability and (hopefully objective) notability were the focus of discussions, discussions at CfD focused on subjective opinions about whether categories were useful to readers according to the category guidelines. At SfD, where I have spent a decent amount of time in the past, the opinions voiced seemed to me a lot more subjective than those voiced at AfD.

  Regarding your second point, the categories you list are all breaking down businesspeople by nationality, an "essential, 'defining' feature of article subjects" according to WP:CAT#What categories should be created. Those categories are the equivalent of Category:American businesspeople – which, might I add, has no subcategories based on ethnicity. Category:Jewish American businesspeople would be a subcategory of businesspeople based on ethnicity, and when you go looking for other such subcategories, other stuff doesn't exist when there's an no article for it (e.g. Jewish American businesspeople, a redlink). This appears to be represented in the relevant guideline; and on that note, you should read WP:OC#EGRS now, because you can be sure that it will be brought up at CfD if this is relisted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, Category:American businesspeople by ethnicity? List of Jewish American businesspeople for the article you claim doesn't exist? Since people keep denying that List of Jewish American businesspeople exists as an article, I have put it in the info at the top...and [[[Jewish American businesspeople]] probably should be redirect to that list Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess you didn't read WP:OC#EGRS, which I identified as the relevant guideline in the sentence following the one with which you take issue. I'll quote part of it here: "If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created."

  As for Category:American businesspeople by ethnicity, that only has two subcategories, and one of those has exactly two articles under its umbrella.... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Stop. A few points. 1) It is proper to have a deletion review if, inter alia, we have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Which we do -- see, e.g, the refs that I point to that are subsequent to the AFD. Where there is such new information, the proper request is "relist" (rather than overturn), which is what we are seeing here. 2) You seem to be shifting criteria. First you say the litmus test is "would this category be helpful to our readers"? I'm uncertain what the basis if for that view. But when I point out that we have many categories that would appear to be of lesser interest, you shift the criterion to a completely different one, without explaining (at the same time) why "Category:São Tomé and Príncipe businesspeople" is at all either more helpful to readers, or more "defining" (whatever that means" than the much more highly referenced "Jewish American businesspeople". I don't see how it is more helpful to our readers; just the opposite. And I don't see why it is more defining -- I can't seem to find the RS coverage of it, and of its principles. 3) The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[1][2][3] In the (unusual) case of Jews, we have a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your detailed and thought-provoking response. I'll respond to each point in turn.

  1) While I substantially agree with this point, there are certainly many times when DRV looks at a proposal to re-create something and decides on its own not to permit restoration or to relist. I usually tend towards letting people hash out, say, questions of notability at AfD and not at DRV. However, this is one of those cases where I looked at the information presented and was not convinced that it would be worth the effort to permit re-creation of the category and go through the CfD process again.

  The two litmus tests that you perceive as different are actually taken from the same paragraph of the WP:CAT guideline. I'll quote it here: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization." I personally don't see these standards as conflicting.

  3) This, of course, is the thorny issue, and where I am inclined to duck out of the discussion. Because Jews comprise not only an ethnicity but also a nationality, under the guidelines this could be a valid category. But I am still not in favor of permitting re-creation, simply because I doubt that this category would be useful to readers, for reasons already stated above. Even when we throw all the other stuff out the window, I still have that objection to re-creation. That said, at this point it looks like the consensus might end up favoring a relist. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist more than credible arguments have been made that consensus has changed on this subject, one where there are ample reliable and verifiable sources showing that individuals have been defined and organized on this basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose relisting. Despite various assertions above, I don't see any actual evidence that consensus has changed; merely that one or two similar categories have not yet been deleted. Nor do I see any new evidence about the substantive merits of this triple intersection, a firm of category which is routinely deprecated because of the massive category clutter it can generate. However, I am making this a weak oppose because I can see that there may be some merit in the case for reassessing consensus after four years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Motion (talk||history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|XfD2|restore)

Hello, I'm kinda new in this stuff of deletion of articles, so I hope you'd be patient with me. Also, I'm from Mexico, and maybe my English is somewhat bad, so please excuse me if it's so. Thanks in advance.

I was hoping that a reconsideration for the Constant Motion article could be made. It has been deleted recently, and I would like to say that I do not agree. If you could consider to undo this and keep the article, I would help to expand it and give it its due maintenance. --Sirius 128 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't that a redirect to perpetual motion?—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a Dream Theater song from their ninth studio album Systematic Chaos (2007). --Sirius 128 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, not one hit on the first three pages of Google results refers to perpetual motion, so this would appear to be the primary usage (although a hatnote for perpetual motion might be a good idea). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the uses,, the phrase constant motion is used for continuing unaccelerated motion, not perpetual motion--it would be erroneous as a redirect or a hatnote,. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Let's start by clarifying that while we're supposedly being asked to review a deletion from September 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant Motion), User:Sirius 128 is presumably asking us to review Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Presence_of_Enemies, a just-concluded deletion which included Constant Motion (song), a recreate of the previously-deleted (and thus speedy-able, see WP:SPEEDY G4) Constant Motion. I endorse both the 2009 AfD and the just-concluded 2011 AfD. And I have two broad points to make.

First, because threshold/procedural issues should always be dealt with first, and pace WP:BITE (Sirus' account is only a few weeks old), review is inappropriate. The request is a bare assertion that Sirius doesn't agree with the result ("[i]t has been deleted recently, and I would like to say that I do not agree"), which is explicitly excluded as a basis for review in DRV: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." The request for review amounts to a post facto WP:ILIKEIT argument.

Second, even if review is appropriate, the result should be endorsed. It took a lot of work in 2009 to purge the proliferation of needless fancruft articles on individual Dream Theater songs, and it was frustrating to have to go through the process all over again this year for a handful more. WP:NSONGS is crystal clear that individual songs do not get their own article unless something about them warrants a reasonably detailed article that satisfies the usual inclusion criteria. They are to be treated in the appropriate parent article (either for the artist or the album), with redirects as necessary for plausible search terms. That's what we achieved in 2009; it's what we underlined this morning; and we should stick with it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Simon Dodd's exceptionally clear reasoning. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, I concur with Simon Dodd's second point and with the outcome. I'd question his first point because I think the "threshold" for DRV is set very low. There's jurisdiction and standing. In terms of jurisdiction the questions are:

  a) Has a deletion been performed; or

  b) Has a deletion discussion been closed.

  Provided either of these two limbs are satisfied then DRV has jurisdiction. In terms of standing the question is, does a good faith user want a deletion review to take place? If the answer is yes then that user has standing. Access to DRV is not otherwise restricted.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding is that deletion review is limited to cases where there has been an unreasonable decision or process hasn't been followed. We don't allow a DRV just because you disagree with a deletion. tfeilS (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pretty much as tfeilS said; at the threshold, DRV requires something more than bare disagreement with the outcome, but the petitioner relies on nothing more than that, advancing an argument that could have been made (although it wouldn't have been accepted) during the normal run of the AfD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the custom and practice is that deletion reviews can be, and have been, opened when the petitioner agreed with the outcome and had no quarrel with the deleting admin whatsoever. (Petitioner might be seeking unprotection of a page, for example.) DRV is usually adversarial in character but not necessarily so.—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do any of these is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. For all practical purposes, this opens up everything. As a principle, there needs to be a way of correcting mistakes, even if the community has made them, and in many cases, this is the only place available. The ultimate guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV says, in as many words, "[t]his process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." We should either adhere to that or delete it, and I think we should adhere to it. As to WP:BURO: Generally, see WP:PIMP, and let's look more closely at BURO while we're at it. "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies." What principle is served by letting every nomination be refought here? "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." That obviously doesn't doesn't apply here: making it harder to purge fancruft makes the encyclopedia worse, not better. And while it's true to some extent that "[d]isagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures," the fact is that without rules and procedures for moving from proposal to execution by way of consensus, the search for consensus telescopes into infinity (which is why MERGE is such a total disaster). BURO is not the ultimate touchstone; WP:5P is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. To the extent bureaucracy and rules hinder that goal, they're bad, which is all BURO and WP:IAR say. But in the mine run of cases, process helps build the encyclopedia.

None of this matters in this case, of course, because even if review of this result is appropriate (and I say it isn't), the result should still be endorsed, because the closing admin correctly interpreted the result of the nomination and correctly applied WP policy.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues on WT:DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Osteoporosis Foundation (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) is an NGO based in Switzerland and the global body of osteoporosis-focused patient societies, as well as scientists and health care providers working on bone disease. A page was created for IOF in 2008 numerous times and then deleted for repeated ‘recreation of copyright infringement', until finally the page was protected.

I have discussed this page with the admin who deleted it, and created a new page for review, however the admin believes the page exists solely for promotional purposes. I disagree. Perhaps this was the case with earlier versions of this page (which I had no involvement with), however with the new page I have created, I have included references and sought to remove any semblances of promotional material. I strongly believe this page would benefit Wikipedia, as IOF is notable as the world’s largest alliance of osteoporosis focused organizations and health professionals.

I would appreciate it if you would review the deletion / protection of this page. Thank you in advance, your time and advice is appreciated Inyon011 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) -->[reply]

• This user has a draft at User talk:Inyon011/International Osteoporosis Foundation they wish to see put into mainspace. There has been a bit of discussion with Hu12 about this at User talk:Hu12#International Osteoporosis Foundation. These were inferred by the above before I made the original page location easier to find. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unprotect, since this is a wiki and there's every indication that Inyon011 is a good faith user who wants to create a non-infringing article, but without prejudice to an AfD listing if other users are concerned that the sources are unsatisfactory.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As mentoned, See User talk:Hu12#International Osteoporosis Foundation.

• Also International osteoporosis foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Also International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia by the International Osteoporosis Foundation. While it has a few links, they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions.

• The un.org link only lists the IOF name (along with hundreds of others). This is a generic list which is trivial.
• The springer.com links are to self-published material and/or IOF Publications.
• The ryortho.com link is RRY Publications, a marketing site masquarading as a source[1]. looks as if won a Silver ADDY® Award for "creative excellence in advertising." [2].
• Lastly GIVING an award to Jordan's Queen Rania Al-Abdullah doesnt make IOF notable, Recieving one from a queen might.

No significant third-party coverage could be found. Nothing more than continued Self-promotion and advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT--Hu12 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The award to Queen Rania was from the Italian government in recognition of her work for the IOF. It was not from the IOF. As usual Hu12's judgement seems to be based a paranoid obsession with spam rather than on evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to mainspace The society is responsible for three journals published by a leading scholarly publisher, all 3 listed in Scopus, Excerpta Medica and other indexes and therefore meet the requirements for notability of journals, so an article could be written about each one of them, and I shall proceed to do just that. ( Two of them are also in Journal Citation Reports with very good impact factors, and thus highly notable) I think a society that publishes three such journals is notable regardless of other factors, as publishing what appear to the the most important publications in its field globally, but it will be easy enough to get the information into the journal articles. What I see here is an example of our excessively skeptical attitude towards important serious organizations--our inability to distinguish spam from information. This version is not spam. . DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article started off to describe prominent and notable group-/social buying websites in South Africa. The administrator did a speedy deletion with reason A7 but later on mentioned that "Wikipedia is not an advertising site / directoy" - if this was really the nature of the article then it should have been deleted with reason G11/db-spam/db-promo. Please see the XfD-page for further detail and my generic concerns regarding deletion of this article and how come articles of similar websites recently published did not follow the same policies. Discussed with admin, but did not get a reasonable explanation why articles for other websites are allowed.

I am also referring to Wikipedias sentiment of "...Pay attention to the guideline "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." It is not a rule of Wikipedia that an article has to be perfect the instant it's first posted; that's why we have edits." and believe that the deletion was done in a hasty manner. See Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#New_pages_that_may_require_deletion --MagicDude4Eva (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the cached-deleted page and it does not look anything to what I thought I had submitted and reviewed. Since the original article was gone, I only noticed this now when going through the DRV - I think I might have messed up here and my last edit might not have saved. My last edit (which obviously did not save) had information about competitors with other references in place (mostly the ones I quoted in my talk with the admin from my locally saved version of the article) - what to do now? --MagicDude4Eva (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I checked the text of the deleted article, and its the same as in the cacheEarlier version did have information about other companies, but that's not relevant to an article on this company. The article as submitted was unacceptable, and did fall under the A7 guideline. It might possibly have fallen under G11 also, because we tend to regard an article about a unimportant site or product as likely to be entirely promotional in intent, though its a difficult line to draw between descriptive and promotional. The article says essentially nothing about the website, just the general phenomenon, and the one reference present in it was also about the overall phenomenon, and barely even mentioned the particular site. Ditto about the other references. If you can write an article with references that do provide substantial coverage of this particular site from independent published reliable sources, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, you can try again without needing permission here, but if you do not have them, there's no real possibility of an article. I'm not altogether sure a general article on this type of sites in south Africa is viable, but that's another choice, and then the references you had would be usable. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per DGG. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janos Boros (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've discussed this with the closer and appreciate his rationale for finding no consensus, but I still disagree rather strongly, which is why I'm taking this here for a fuller airing. Let's start by looking at the voting situation. By my count, there were four leaning or supporting deletion, and backed by arguments. There was one lengthier "keep" vote that didn't present any policy-based reasons for keeping. There were two one-line "keep" and one "delete" votes that didn't add much to the discussion. There were two comments which, while endorsing neither position, at least cast skepticism on the subject's notability. Finally, there was the article creator Hangakiran, who was implacably and resolutely for keeping.

I will now explain why I believe the "delete" side, mainly Dahn and I, effectively rebutted any points made by Hangakiran:

• • We showed that holding the posts neither of deputy mayor, nor of city councilor (in a city of Cluj-Napoca's size), nor of county party chairman are significant enough by themselves to merit inclusion under the WP:POLITICIAN rubric of "major local political figures".
  • We negated claims that we shouldn't rely on national Romanian dailies to assess the subject's notability because of their alleged anti-Hungarian bias in two ways. First, we showed that Romanian politicians of Hungarian ethnicity who are indeed notable receive ample coverage in that press. Second, we selected an ethnic Romanian deputy mayor of a similarly-sized city and showed that his press coverage is essentially as low as the subject's.
  • We analyzed the sources presented in the article as well as those brought up by Hangakiran, and showed that they very much fall under the "routine news reporting" mentioned at WP:NOTNEWS, and not under the "significant press coverage" demanded by WP:POLITICIAN.

Yes, Hangakiran made his points loudly and often, but I believe these were negated during the discussion, and that, broadly speaking, the other participants agreed with that negation. Hence, I suggest overturning to "delete". - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The guidelines for WP:POLITICIAN are clear and point 1 states that the president of State/county units of political entities are eligible. Moreover Janos Boros has been at the helm of Cluj county for nearly 12 years. The Hungarian news media across all counties in the Nord-West and Central counties with significant Hungarian population are replete with news coverage of Janos Boros. Second for a Hungarian there are two levels of acheivement one state and the the other center - the highest at the state level is either the Vice Mayor or the Presidentship of RMDSZ. Janos Boros has held both poistions. This is definitely indicative of his popularity among his people.

Biruitorul and Dahn have been supporting each other and when I make a reply to Biruitorul, Dahn pitches in to reply. It seems strange. Dahn even goes on to say before the close of the discussion that "I'm not going to waste the day bickering about this with you, you're obviously set in your campaign to keep this misleading article and the rationale supporting it. To clarify, this is my third post on this page, so you were not in fact replying to me. Carry on "answering" if you will, but expect to lose all your remaining credibility when you're manipulating info with sophistry." This is definitely trying to push me into making a mistake I presume. This I consider quite harassing to take in.

I should say the way the discussion evolved has not been civil. Now Biruitorul wants to re-debate the debate. So be it. Hangakiran (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • We're not here to re-raise issues brought up during the debate, but let me just point out to those reading this discussion that this is the sort of nonsense I had to respond to for a week. No, Boros was not "at the helm of Cluj county for nearly 12 years"; he led the fourth-largest party in that county for several years, and, by virtue of internal bureaucracy, was appointed vice-mayor of the county seat for a couple of terms. No, the highest elected political office an ethnic Hungarian (or anyone) can hold at the county or local level is not vice-mayor; it's president of the county council and mayor, respectively; Csaba Borboly and Iuliu Ilyés, respectively, are ethnic Hungarians who have held those positions; Boros held neither, and as I showed repeatedly, his chairmanship of the county party does precious little to show notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse non-consensus close. The guideline for politicians are for statewide/provincewide. In the US, counties are subdivisions of states, and do not count. In many other places they are first order divisions, and do count. In Romania I think they would count. But Boros was never head of a province. He was head of a particular political party in a province, and that has almost always not been considered necessarily notable, though perhaps it should be for major parties. Mayors of large cities are notable also, Cluj-Napochas a population of 300,000, and I think that's large enough .But he was deputy mayor, not mayor. Of course, he may nonetheless have had a sufficient political role to be notable, and there seem to be sufficient newspaper references for that. True , the article did resemble a campaign biography, and I might have !voted delete had I participated. . But these factors are to some extent a matter for judgement, and a non-consensus in the circumstances is a reasonable close. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
• I think the issue needs to be given a rest, a cooling-off period. The article needs improvement that is identified on the article talk page. If little else changes on it, I think that could be indicative of true non-significance. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close. This is a pointless debate, our fellow editors keep listing this article for deletion (3rd times), voting for it, then deletion review if not succeeded; citing WP:POLITICIAN but not citing its heading ("Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included"), neglecting general notability guidelines (a brief looking resulted that J.B. was the main arbitrator in the Mathias Rex sculpture scandal with the HU gov't, and seemed to be the main supporter of the HU nationality in Kolozsvár, which is both significant and informational), asking for sources then ignoring them; going in circles. (And sharing their opinion about other editors' personalities. And calling notifications "canvassing" with neglecting the explanations on WP:Canvassing.) I'm sure it'd be much better for the sanity of all participants to move on to something more collaborative topic instead. --grin ✎ 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we're not here to re-argue the debate, but to say why it was closed correctly or not. But I'd suggest somehow working in Boros' name at Matthias Corvinus Statue, Cluj-Napoca, and showing here that he was "the main supporter of the HU nationality in Kolozsvár" — or else, assuming this remains as "no consensus", we'll be back for yet another AfD in several months' time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus close. no doubt something is funky about that article and the discussion has hallmarks of "involved" people contributing, and it should go back to afd sometime soon, but the closers decision was within discretion. and no, i did not read the rationale for the deletion review. the discussion in the afd was long and tortured as well. the guy was a "vice-mayor" for a mid-sized city, and a local party official. borderline at best, its debatable, apparently there is some local news coverage about him.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to close the discussion as no consensus as well, but left it sit because I didn't want to kick off a storm. Endorse, only reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, I agree with that: it was the only reasonable close. WP:LETGO.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse entirely reasonable closure of a very messy AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Revolution flag (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• I had been the closing admin in this case, and I'm bringing this one up to get the opinion of the community. User:Duchamps comb had left this message on my page, [3], asking for an explanation, and I'm interpreting that as a deletion review. It appears to me that he or she was not aware that the article had been renominated, and did not have the chance to state a case the second time around. As the talk page User talk:Duchamps comb shows, Duchamps comb did get a notice on the second nomination, which came soon after the close of the first, but it mistakenly linked to the first discussion. My feeling is that the question should be reopened; I've kept the article deleted until a ruling can be made here. Any comments on endorsing or overturning would be welcome, in that I've not encountered anything like this before. Thank you. Mandsford 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me that the editor was notified of both deletion nominations.(First on January 28, 2011, Second on February 20, 2011). Dave Dial (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Mandsford's suggestion. It's clear the article creator didn't understand the significance of the botched notification. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not totally sure if that's exactly the case. The editor hadn't edited for 3 months, and only came back yesterday. Regardless of how the notification went, the creator would not have weighed in.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I don't see this needs a DRV, as closing admin Mandsford can overturn his own close and relist without requiring a review at DRV. I'd suggest relisting the last debate rather then creating a third nomination by YMMV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse...I think? It seems that there are three main points I need to make, so bare with me for a sec.

• First of all, it looks like Twinkle hiccuped (hiccoughed?) when notifying User:Duchamps comb. I would have fixed it up if I'd noticed at the time, but I didn't, so I apologize for the trouble.
• That being said, it doesn't look like the little kerfuffle there caused Duchamps comb to miss out on an opportunity to weigh in on the AfD. He or she seems to have been on a three month hiatus and only came back yesterday, and even if the notice had been correctly posted it wouldn't have changed anything. I understand the concern here, but as far as I know there's no DRV argument that allows for relisting because a user was away during the AfD.
• Of course, what's probably the most important point, and I say this with all due respect to those who have commented so far, is that we seem to be jumping the gun a little. As of now, Duchamps comb asked Mandsford why a no consensus AfD resulted in deletion, so Mandsford showed him the correct reasons. Before we relist an AfD so that a user who potentially missed a chance to comment gets a chance to comment, shouldn't we wait for this user to say that they actually want to contest the result and weigh in? This all seems a bit too preemptive; at the very least, we should wait to see if the user weighs in on the issue at all, since there's no reason to reopen the discussion if he or she is not going to comment.

I think that's all I have for now. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to weigh in. What do you want to know? I think the page was relevant to more than one day of protesting, it is still being used, and still in the media from time to time. Also pages around here seem to disappear quite often if the political wind hits someones backside the wrong way. I kinda figured all you much more knowledgeable people would get thing right (hopefully)... P.S. If someone could copy and paste the now deleted article on a sub page for me that be really kind.--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, thanks for weighing in, much appreciated. It seems that the solution to this is simply userfying the page to a subpage for Duchamps comb?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah NO, -IMHO Second Revolution flag still has merit to be a page of its own, or I can work on it to beef up the refs. However to not loose all of the work I and others did on the old page a sub would be nice just to have.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you misunderstand what I'm saying, I think. A user subpage isn't just for storing your the info. It just gives you a place to continue to work on the article until its in a potentially acceptable state, at which point it could possibly be moved back into the mainspace.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. However that page was on the main space for almost a year. IMHO it should still be there. Maybe you have some political statement to make/share with us?--Duchamps_comb MFA 02:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, try to assume good faith here. If you really want to make your case, the AfD could be reopened so you could make your comment, but I'd oppose this action since I don't think it is in order and it would probably just close again with the same result while causing unneeded drama. But it's not up to me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The creator doesn't get to have a special voice in an AfD, thus not being notified does not affect the discussion, which was closed correctly. If someone wants it userfied to try to address the deletion reason, then that is fine. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, essentially per Spartaz: there's no reason why Mandsford can't overturn himself without a DRV, and Mandsford seems minded to.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, but the person who we'd be relisting this for has already given their opinion, and while they feel it shouldn't be deleted they didn't really give an argument that would change the result of the AfD, and they didn't even take an issue with having it userfied for them.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If I understood wiki better then I may know how to form an argument, at the moment its looks like a tennis match I do not under stand the rules to and the announcer in speaking Chinese. Hope this helps.--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everyone, for the advice above. I'll put this out for another seven days. Mandsford 20:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olavo de Carvalho (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been deleted because of the efforts of a user using several accounts, a behavior for which he has already been blocked infinitely on ptwiki (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cedric Sands). The main reason given was lack of appropriate sources, however I recreated with a totally new text, and appropriate references; nevertheless, it has been summarily deleted.

• Overturn speedy. The AFD discussion turned on the use of only a single source; the speedy-deleted version has multiple credible sources that apparently don't coincide with the disputed source. Therefore the new version was not a "substantially identical" recreation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy indeed, appears to be not substantially identical. A renomination would be fine, but G4 should not be used to foreclose honest efforts to recreate a deleted article addressing the complaints that led to its deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DRV's job is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. G4 is for substantially identical re-creations and this wasn't; JamesBWatson is encouraged to reread what G4 actually says, because the remarks on his talk page suggest that he may have misunderstood it. An "overturn" outcome seems inevitable to me.

  However, this is a biography of a living person and JamesBWatson's legitimate concerns about the sourcing imply that this needs to be listed at AfD. There are no BLP grounds for anything more rapid than the AfD because the article doesn't contain any unsourced negative information.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the speedy G4 nominator, I'll just chime in to observe that, not having access to either deleted version post-deletion, it was not immediately apparent to me that this was a different article, and that now I must take it that it is, from you who can see the two versions. I will mention that the new "appropriate references" claimed boil down to a single quotation in a book[4], and a statement in an interview with an astrologer that Caravalho was also an astrologer.[5] Not the sort of thing to base an article on. I was also the original deletion nominator; I am a well-established editor with no interest in the subject of Caravalho, any my action was certainly not a "the efforts of a user using several accounts." Far from considering vetting this article my personal mission, I am extremely hopeful that since it has come to the attention of the Deletion Review folks, some of you may take appropriate care to figure out the proper steps after the speedy-deletion is overturned. Wareh (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had at least five different references, all of them asserting the individual's relevance (obvious to anyone who knows minimally either Portuguese or the Brazilian political context). When I mentioned the use of several accounts I obviously wasn't referring to you (who I didn't even know until today), but to the user mentioned in the checkuser request, who seems to have made a crusade out of his hatred for this person. RafaAzevedo ^msg 19:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fault for an inappropriate G4'ing never lies with a non-admin nominator, unless they have actual knowledge that the article and the deleted incarnation are dissimilar. It's the admin's job to verify that speedy criteria apply, which is why admins can see deleted material AND do the deletions--in G4 cases, the necessarily go hand-in-hand. When you put a G4 on the article, it was a good faith request for an admin to verify whether the criteria applied and act accordingly. Sometimes admins take shortcuts, and I know I've done this myself in the past, which is why there's DRV and all admin actions can be undone. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy While the recently deleted version is not ready to be a featured article, it does not appear to match the previously deleted version and provides a number of reliable and verifiable sources to support a claim of notability. After recreation and sufficient time to develop and expand the article an AfD might be appropriate, but the result should be determined there (if need be) based on community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was not informed of this review. Since I deleted the article I think I should have been.
2. While the new article is certainly not identical to the old one it seems to me essentially similar. I have indeed reread the description of CSD G4, as S Marshall suggests, and I am not sure what I am supposed to have misunderstood.
3. Consensus clearly seems to be in favour of undeletion, so I will undelete the article. If, before this discussion is closed, consensus shifts against that decision, then of course it can be redeleted, but as far as I am concerned I am accepting the current apparent consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Next step? I know it's not really the business here, but, please, would those who participated here please consider applying their own independent judgement about this article vs. the notability guidelines it was deemed to have failed in its first & very similar version? Wareh (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's absolutely nothing to stop you listing it at AfD. If you do, please link back to this discussion in your nomination, though.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda (band) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

RE: below is a help question from me that you replied to:

The Question: "I moved my page from my user space to Ayurveda (Band) in an attempt to the launch the page. In return, I now have this message at the top of the page: This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. If you are the article's creator, you can seek feedback on your new article. (July 2010)

Will the "review" happen automatically by WikiReviewers or do I have to take some other action. I am most anxious to get this page launched. Thank you. Whysosirius (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Answer: The article has been deleted as unambiguous advertising so it is a moot point, but in any event the best thing to do is ask at WP:Requests for feedback. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

I would like to dispute your decision to delete the Ayurveda (band) page as "unambiguous advertising". I dispute it for many reasons and in no particular order. 1. The information provides a different meaning to the pre-existing Wikipedia page on Ayurveda which has to do with Ayurvedic medicine. 2. I looked at similiar musician Wiki pages such as that for St. Vincent and I see a correlation between the two. Both bands play at common venues and therefore can be considered peers. Why one and not the other? 3. Ayurveda has a legion of followers for example, over 15,000 fans on Reverbnation. Clearly there is an interest in knowing more encyclopedic info about the band, its history, and its catalog of music/videos. 4. There is a multi-cultural aspect to info on Ayurveda as two of its members are Nepali and there are thousands of fans from there. Diwas Gurung, and Ayurveda, are included in the Wiki Nepalese rock page. Also, Ayurveda is included in another wiki page, Ithaca, NY/music and musicians. 5. Ayurveda's latest work "H. luminous" is of interest in that it is a concept piece that plays off an existing Wikipage, 2012. The piece, "H. lumionous" is a work of art that espouses beliefs contained in the 2012 page that this period is "spiritually transformative"...and centers "upon various interpretations of the Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar." 5. Ayurveda is also relevant in that they are a group of young men who are committed to the environment and global issues. From silkscreening their own merchandise and using recyclable materias to being active in social issues, this page sets them apart from many other bands that are featured in Wikipedia. They are committed locally and globally (to an orphanage in Nepal) and the telling of their story isn't about marketing but informing. Taken as a whole, I cannot accept that this page represents a marketing ploy and I am committed to getting your decision to delete the page overturned. Please let me know a point of contact within Wikipedia that I can make the case for making this page available to online users. Thank you in advance for your assistance. 12:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Whysosirius (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt to contact the user who deleted the page, ukexpat. I received no reply. Whysosirius (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted by Orangemike, not ukexpat. Did you contact Orangemike? Stifle (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Orangemike after posting this deletion review only because I was unaware that it was Orangemike that deleted the page, not ukexpat. Have not heard from orangemike as of this writingWhysosirius (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the above note is indicative. I will quote from the lede, "They are accomplished songwriters, musicians, and recording artists whose energetic and soulful live performances showcase the strength of their body of work." They also are noted as having made Vimeo videos! Big whoop. They failed WP:BAND, and the article as written contained no credible assertions of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy and send to AFD. The article was horridly fannish, but could have been stubbed while including an assertion of significance. One of the links demonstrated that one of the band's CDs had been reviewed favorably by the Washington Post, which should be enough of an assertion of significance to survive A7 -- not that that was easy to spot among all the fanclutter. I expect they do fail WP:BAND, but there's a possibility that they don't, so a full AFD is called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In following the trail of comments with regard to the Ayurveda page, I can see mistakes have been made. Only excuse is, first time outta the box with Wiki. I would like the opportunity to work on a rewrite with the guidance of some editors before trying to launch. Problem now, I can't even get to the page on a user space. Surely the page isn't gone, gone. Help please, anyone? Whysosirius (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The page can be undeleted by an administrator. However, the deletion review period lasts one week, after which stage an administrator will review the matter and decide what the next steps will be. Providing it in userspace for you might work out best. Please be patient. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied it: i.e., restored it and moved it back to User:Whysosirius/Ayurveda (band). Please heed the criticisms involved here, especially with regard to P.R. fluff like "band with a conscience" and the like, before moving it back into Wikipedia proper. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't buy arguments like "this is informing, not advertising"; promotion is promotion, and we don't allow it; full stop. See the explanations for disparate cases which we shorthand as WP:NOBLECAUSE and WP:NOCAREBAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Stifle and Orangemike for the comments and for getting the page back on my userspace. I will unfluffify and try again. But before trying to launch outright, I will request an editor's review -- something I now realize I should have done from the get-go. Whysosirius (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosecrance (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Three arguments were made in deleting the article: Relevancy, conflict of interest and unambiguous advertising or promotion.

I was told that I have a conflict of interest, but I was the one who disclosed the conflict in the first place. I don't believe this merits automatic deletion of the article - which is what appears to have happened. Because I have a stake in the topic doesn't mean I didn't or can't write an objective, fact-based entry. In fact, I'm arguing that my stake in the company makes me particularly informed and qualified to write about it.

No evidence of conflict of interest compromising the integrity of the article was cited. There was no loaded language, and no request to correct an ambiguous or unreferenced fact was made.

On the other hand, if the Rosecrance entry was deleted because a lack of relevancy, there are thousands of people affected by the company each week. What makes this company, with a nearly 100 year history and tens of millions of dollars in annual revenues, any less relevant than companies (for example) like About.com or News Chief.

Rosecrance is covered by objective, third-party media outlets on a regular basis. It has appeared in the Rockford Register Star five times this month already. The company also has been featured on Oprah (see related sources section) and in Addiction Professional. Billykulpa (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of the original article. However, the subject of the article does appear at first glance to be notable, but the article would need a substantial rewrite in order to become of encyclopaedic value. The original article was certainly rather promotional in tone - in fact, all but two sentences were simply detailing the services it provides - and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. In order to bring this up to standard, we would need more information on the company (its history, structure etc - more than just its services), and it would need to be well referenced with most, if not all, of its references coming from third-party sources. I hope this helps, and good luck. —BETTIA— ^talk 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have a lot of history on the company, but thought that felt more gratuitous than simply stating what the company actually does.

To rewrite, do I simply undo the deletion and start making the necessary changes? Billykulpa (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for the conclusion of the DRV. I have deleted this for now. I (or any other admin) would also be happy to userfy it (that, to move it to a subpage of your userpage) so you can work on it while the DRV is running. Chick Bowen 01:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the original article was so substantially bad and unsourced, just make a new article from scratch in your user space - use sources. At the conclusion of the DRV, move the article from your user draft into the main project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Clear_Skies_(machinima) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hastily deleted prior to receiving many accolades and awards from festivals and machinima review sites CraziFuzzy (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was deleted over 2¾ years ago. If they've become more notable since then, just recreate the article. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I wasn't sure about recreating a previously deleted article, regardless of time since it was deleted. The original deleting admin is no longer active, so i came here. CraziFuzzy (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architects'_Alliance_of_Ireland (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The deletion of the article was justified as follow: A7 (No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Also WP:COATRACK, WP:CSD#G10, and what-not):

I have created the article “Architects’ Alliance of Ireland” that was deleted without warning and without starting any discussion. I guess it is called a speedy deletion. The article was online since September last year.

I am trying not to be offended, but I feel that the deletion of the article was inappropriate and not properly justified. I approached the administrator User:Stifle but he refused to give any more details dispited not having any valid reason for deleting the article.

First I want to say that Architects’ Alliance of Ireland was created in reaction to an injustice which seen many self-taught architects in trouble within the Republic of Ireland. The Architects’ Alliance of Ireland views are not shared by most registered architects. There is conflict between the Alliance and the RIAI. This conflict is reflected on Wikipedia as it is core with the subject. The same issue is true in any article with a disputed subject. I can give the following example which I am aware of:

Church of Scientology - Iraq war - Jacque Fresco to quote only 3 of them.

With reference to A7, the subject significance is well detailed in the article. Many press articles about the association were provided as well as links to political debates on the subject. Can the administrator explain explain why this is not significant?

With Reference to WP:COATRACK, the subject is well centered to the association and its actions. There is nothing else behind it. If the administrator pretends that the article was created for another purpose than to inform on Architects’ Alliance and its actions, please give details. The administrator is the first and only person to make such a claim.

With reference to WP:CSD#G10, the article never threaten anyone. Architects’ Alliance has a critical approach on the registration procedure in Ireland, it is critical of the RIAI, it denunciates wrong doing and injustice, but it does not threaten. Legal procedure were started but the article only states that they were started it does not threaten to start a procedure. If you have found material that threatens anyone please give detail.

Stiffe there are surely some improvement to be made within this article, but I think that your deletion was inappropriate because your reasons for deletions are not founded. I have also noted that you deleted the “critics” section of the RIAI article without any valuable reason. I perceive your act as a censorship and I suspect that your opinion on the subject is partial. Christophe Krief (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own deletion, the AAI is attempting to poison the well and spread negativity about the legally approved official architects' association (the RIAI) through the different media. This is essentially a club of people rejected by the RIAI and has no independent notability. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AAoI is the association that we are talking about Stiffe, AAI refer to another group. Architects' Alliance of Ireland is a legal association. It includes over one hundred and something members. I used to be a member of the association but resigned when I found myself taking other routes.

However, the association has now a reputation within the architectural world in Ireland. It represents and speaks for many non-registered practitioners as well as its members. Through their website you can access videos of a political debate that their action has helped to induce in the Dail. Many important political figures were present, including newly nominated ministers such as Hogan and Quinn.

The association was the subjects of many articles, including some in the Law Society of Ireland gazette. Maybe you should read these articles before challenging the significance of AAoI.

You seem to be taking the subject lightly. Why didn't you propose the article for deletion and start a discussion? Why have you deleted it without asking for more information when you are obvioulsy not well informed on the subject. You must admit that your way of action is very suspicious. --Christophe Krief (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AAoI This article was deleted without any warning or notice. A dozen or more of people have participated to drafting it. Is it normal that it shall be deleted so fast on the decision of only one person who is not well informed about the subject?

AAoI is notable in the field of architecture only in Ireland only. I understand that this is a restricted area, but if you compare visits to the RIAI (Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland) wiki article with visits to the AAoI wiki article, you will see that the RIAI does not have more readers than the AAoI.

The Article is significant to those based in Ireland and practicing architecture. It is notable and relevant to Irish Architecture. I have cheked all these issues prior to create the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and send to AFD if you must. The article itself makes a reasonable claim of significance, and the independent press coverage makes clear that the claim of significance is credible. The suggestion of a G10 basis for deletion is quite troubling; many political action groups are formed in opposition to government action, either actual or anticipated, and criticism of those favoring the action is both common and frequently legitimate (which is not to say correct; but we don't deem a political viewpoint illegitimate simply because consensus may be against it. Adam Smith said, after all, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices," and the "attack" component of the deleted page is a far milder version of the same sentiment in a specific context. There are certainly routine editing issues with the deleted text, but nothing justifying speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete I think that you deserve your Barnstar of Integrity (Hullaballoo Wolfowitz), I hope that other administrators will read the article and the links. AAoI maybe insignificant worldwide, but in the field of Irish architecture they are volunteers trying to outline all the injustice that many, including myself, are confronted too. They are volunteers who defend the cause of Irish self-taught architects in front of highly paid representatives of the Royal Institute. I hope that the article will be back online and that others will support its retrieval.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already made your position clear by nominating here; you don't get a second !vote. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I am new to this type of procedure, but can I ask why you are entitled to vote when you have already made your position by deleting the article? Your !vote is no more neutral than mine...--Christophe Krief (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's about expressing an opinion in this venue. The assumption is that as nominator you wish the decision to be changed, no such assumption exists about the person who closed the original debate/speedy deleted or whatever. So you get your "vote" by listing it here, others by listing an opinion here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I understand. How long will the vote last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • About seven days, unless something happens to cause an early closure (e.g. you withdraw your request, or some other event happens that makes the outcome quite inevitable). The relatively long discussion is to try to gather as many views and arguments as possible, and to allow people to reply to each other. The theory is that we're reasonable people and will modify our positions based on the arguments we read so as to move towards consensus. It does sometimes work.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your information. I was hoping to have it back online by tomorrow...
• Undelete I am taken aback by this. I think the article not only provides an indication of the importance of the organisation but it makes rather a strong claim. By my standards it comes nowhere close to being an attack page although some of the criticisms should be more firmly based in the claims of the organisation and reliable sources and certainly not in Wikipedia's voice. As for the coatrack guideline, the polemic material is explained to be that of the organisation described and it does not obscure that the article is about the organisation itself. These shortcomings would be appropriate for discussion at the article's talk page but are certainly not criteria for speedy deletion. As for "what-not", I know not a whit. Thincat (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your help referencing the article Thincat. I will not bother your talk page with this, but thank you.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. I won't go so far as to say "overturn" because I'm not at all convinced that Stifle is wrong, but part of DRV's role is to provide FairProcess when a good faith user asks for it, so it's not unreasonable to let the community decide at a full discussion. I'd advise those wishing to keep the article to get their reliable sources ready for that debate, though.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there are many reliable sources in the article, but more can be added. There are additional press release that are missing from the deleted article, there is also an official video published by the association on youtube about the Dail meeting. I may be able to gather more sources, but I think that those already published with the deleted article are already proving the notability of the subject. I think that the issue here is more related to censorship, but I admit also that some of the phrasing can be improved and I hope that I will be given this opportunity and that other editors will participate to higher the quality of the article. --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Well, I don't think the cached version of the article contains the right sources. On Wikipedia, reliable sources means sources that are independent of the subject. You need at least two sources which are (a) not published by AAoI, its agents, representatives or officers, (b) subject to fact-checking and editorial control and (c) actually about the AAoI; if you don't have two such sources then the chances are high that the article would be deleted at AfD. Personally, I think your best bet would be to find a couple of newspaper or magazine articles about them.

      As far as I can see, the sources in the cached version of the article all fail at least one of these criteria, which is why I advised you to prepare your sources for the debate.

      You're certainly not being censored, but you've said that several times now and I wonder if you might not be a bit confused about the subject. You have freedom of speech. But your freedom of speech doesn't let you write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall—it belongs to the Wikimedia foundation—and they only let you write on it if you comply with their rules. There is an onus on you to show that sources meeting Wikipedia's criteria can be found and used as the basis for an article, and if such sources aren't forthcoming then our rules say that we shouldn't have an article at all.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am talking about censorship because this article should not have been the subject of a speedy deletion. Its deletion should have been discussed while the article was online. In this sense there is surely censorship issues here, the article should be online as wiki rules for speedy deletion do not apply.
    • I noticed that some pages were deleted (as the wikipedia article by the way). I have requested explanations from a website named archiseek where many conversations about the issue were raised. The conversations were removed without any good reason it seems. I just realised that the parliamentary debate was also removed. However, there are 2 articles for the Irish Times and one from the Irish Independent which are still accessible. Would you know if a video of the Dail meeting officially filmed by the Government would be a reliable source if uploaded on Youtube by AAoI?--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Wikipedia doesn't generally rate Youtube very highly as a source, but there have been exceptions (I can think of times when a BBC programme was accepted as a reliable source after American editors watched it on Youtube). It's vital not to violate copyright, though (I don't know the copyright status of a video of proceedings of the Dail). The good news is that sources don't have to be online, they just have to be checkable by someone willing to put in a bit of effort—so, for example, if you can cite a printed source by ISBN or ISSN, then that's perfectly okay.

        On this specific subject I think proceedings in the Dail are probably written down somewhere that a competent librarian could read them? By analogy, I know that Hansard is a highly reliable source and I'm sure there'll be an Irish equivalent that will be just as good. Be careful with this, though—a debate in the Dail that's specifically about the AAoI would, I think, strengthen your case enormously. But if the AAoI isn't mentioned, then editors might well view this as a red herring. What exactly was said?—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • The meeting was called by Mr. Hogan TD, now minister of the Environment. There was a presentation by the spokesperson and 2 officers of AAoI and a presentation from the director of the RIAI with two of his assistants. Each part defended its views and questions from TDs were partially answered. At the end it was decided to organise a second meeting. The Building Control (amendment) Bill 2010 was drafted, but changes within the government put everything on hold. I was still a member of AAoI at the time and I was in one of the public seats. The video was published on the government's website but it is now removed. AAoI bought a copy of the video and published it on Youtube. They have also published official minutes of the meeting on their website. Honestly this article should not have been deleted, it is pure censorship. There is a newspaper, the Sunday Business Post, which was involved in repeated blanking of the AAoI article as well as the critics section on the RIAI article. I found out that the IP involved in the blanking belonged to the Sunday Business Post and I wrote to this newspaper last week asking them to stop it. I suspect, but I may be wrong, that the administrator who deleted the AAoI article is working with them.--Christophe Krief (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you mean this video, don't you? It'll take me a while to watch it and let it sink in, and I do hope we can find a transcript for editors' convenience during the discussion. I wonder whether you wouldn't be able to find one via the Wayback Machine; it's hard for someone to erase all trace of anything from the web. What's clear to me from the first few minutes of the video is that there's a committee on the Dail that takes the AAoI rather seriously.

          I'm 100% confident that Stifle is not working with "them" and I do urge you to withdraw all accusations of bad faith against him. From past dealings I can assure you categorically that Stifle's a reasonable man who happens to disagree with you, not a black hat agent of Them intent on persecuting you. Deletion Review is supposed to be drama-free and to concentrate on the facts.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • Yes I mean this video... Regarding User:Stifle I never dealt with him and his intervention was sychornised with repeated blanking of the article. I am just wondering why he did not propose the article for deletion before deleting it.--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it would have been possible to ask Stifle that question without accusing him of anything. Let's leave the deleting administrator alone. He may have erred—we've yet to decide that—but I'm sure he doesn't deserve the nasty things being said about him in this thread. DGG's right below when he talks about a "promotional tone" (though I profoundly disagree with his remarks about "arbitrary bias"). Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV which means that articles have to have a neutral point of view. In other words, you can't just write a hatchet-job about the evil people who're trying to oppress the innocent architects, you have to write material that both sides would agree is true. A redraft wouldn't hurt. You don't need to do that now, though: right now, finding sources that would form the basis of a rewrite is the key.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about part of the article related to a press release in the Sunday Business Post that has been removed by an IP belonging to this same newspaper. (see last edits IP 194.106.155.218). I think that I have undone this edit prior to the article deletion but this was not restored. Is there an issue about the section quoting the Sunday Business Post?--Christophe Krief (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • A press release? If it's by someone involved, then no. We're looking for something written by a journalist.—S Marshall T/C 08:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is an article written by a journalist of the Sunday Business Time which is completely biased. Someone has published the reference demonstrating how the journalist was fully misled by the RIAI. SInce then an IP from this same newspapaer is blanking the section and I have been working to restore it 2 or 3 times already. In the newly restored revision by DGG the section about this article is not appearing. I am wondering if DGG thinks that it is not appropriate content. Here is the content (it is fully referenced) you may also access it from the RIAI page:

" The RIAI is accused of misleading the public about legislative issues concerning the provision of architectural services and about registration cost.[2] One of the most representative example is an article written by John Burke and published in the Sunday Business Post, where the author appears to have been fully misinformed when declaring: “The RIAI is to write to each of the 300 people trading illegally, advising them that it is a criminal offence to practise as an architect without completing the registration process, which was introduced in 2009 under the Building Control Act 2007.”[3] The RIAI frequently omits to inform the press and members of the public that it is not an offence and that it is legal to propose architectural services without being registered with the RIAI. Many of the so-called “Non-registered architects” have denunciated the regulator’s attitude consisting of undermining and criticising architectural services provided by professionals such as engineers, surveyors, technologists or self-trained professionals. The author of the article published on the 30th January 2011 was also misled on the registration cost. On this subject John Burke wrote: “Sources working in the profession said that the cost of registration, which may be as much as €1,200, and the major decline in contracted work, may have led to many architects opting to remain unregistered. “ Despite his contact with the RIAI and despite his apparent conversation with the Registrar, it seems that John Burke was never informed about the real cost of registration, which can sometimes reach a total of €14,700.[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete, I am a member of AAoi, Chris told me about the deletion of the article. I have undone few blanking vandalism of the page before as I did on the RIAI critics section. Stifle who deleted the article says that AAoI is trying to use all media to advertise its campaign. Unfortunatly this administrator does not say that RIAI was caught doing unethical advertising on RTE. AAoI is not supported by the majority but it exists legitimaly and significantly. I would also like to say that Stifle has recently blanked the critics section of RIAI article despite many requests to discuss the issues instead of blanking. It seems that some do not want to talk about our problem, they just want to shut us down. This is the main reason for deleting this article. -- Michael Dunphy -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.130.77 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support Michael. I don't know if your vote will count as you are a member of AAoI. Most AAoI members do not edit wikipedia, many are over 50 years old, some over 60. I think that Michael is the only AAoI member to have participated to the article.--Christophe Krief (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article history temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restor, and rewrite to remove remove the promotional tone. The article is supposed to state the situation , not argue the case, and I would myself have been tempted to delete it via G11 as promotional, except that this is fixable. Optionally list at AfD--depending on what the rewrite loos like. But it is clear from the argument above that the deleting admin had a direct personal view of the merits of the argument, ("the AAI is attempting to poison the well and spread negativity about the legally approved official architects' association") and he should not have done the deletion. This is a interesting example of why admins should generally avoid deleting of the own accord, rather than acting on articles that another person has nominated. any one person has a certain propensity to misjudgment on topics they know about, and requiring two to agree makes it less likely. I see no reason to go the full sever days on this one--I think it's a snow undelete. This is the sort of arbitrary bias that makes Wikipedia disreputable; perhaps we need to protect our reputation by removing the possibility of individual admins to delete under A7--or, if it less general, removing the ability of particular admins to do so. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DGG, Thanks for restoring the article. I will try to improve it during the weekend. I have 2 questions, if you or someone else have time, I would appreciate your help. First, which part of the article sounds like advertising? It was criticised this way by Orangemike few months ago, but I thought to have solved this issue. I admit that I share some interests with the association subject of this article but I tried to present the subject impartially. I was hoping for decent critics to be included but only blanking or indecent remarks were proposed. Second, there is a part of the article related to a press release in the Sunday Business Post that has been removed by an IP belonging to this same newspaper. (see last edits IP 194.106.155.218). I think that I have undone this edit prior to the article deletion but my edition was not restored. Is there an issue about the section quoting the Sunday Business Post? Thanks for your help --Christophe Krief (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that it's advertising so much as polemic, not a description of the AAoI so much as a campaign piece, making its case in a dispute. "The so-called Technical assessment..." "The RIAI frequently omits to inform the press..." Careful phrases like "is claimed to have" and "is accused of" fail to disguise the fact that the author has a strong point of view - the AAoI is good and right, and the RIAI is bad and wrong. This is the problem with COI editing, and the reason why it is strongly discouraged: it so hard for a combatant to step back from the battle. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got your point but we all have our opinions. Can you be expert in a subject without having an opinion? Who would write an article on AAoI, surely not members of the RIAI and surely not those who aren't interested in Irish architecture. I wrote it because I am not anymore a member of AAoI and because I am aware of the subject. If you watch the videos of the Joint Committe on the Environament, you will find that most politicians were supporting the cause of AAoI. Is being neutral a natural attitude when an injustice is happenning before your eyes? I was hopping that members from the royal institute would express their view in the article but instead it was subject to blanking and insertions of non encyclopedic nature.
    • Regarding "The RIAI frequently omits to inform the press...", I think that this claim is referenced with an article published in the SDP. I was aware of correspondance between the AAoI spokesperson and the SDP. I have wrote to SDP due to their repeated deletion of this insertion. This part was inserted by a non named user, maybe a member of the AAoI, I don't know. On my standards it is referenced and it is in the subject. However I have asked for more points of views on this part, thanks for giving yours. The "so-called Technical Assessment" can be replaced by "the Technical assessment" but I am afraid that the term "technical assessment" does not really reflect the nature of the examination, this is the reason for me to have added "So-called" because it is a full architectural assessment, not only a technical assessment. I would prefer to keep "so-called" if this is possible.--Christophe Krief (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the direction the discussion is taking, I will consent to speedy closing of this DRV with a listing at AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it be appropriate to copy and continue this deletion review in the discussion page of the article which was deleted and not restored?--Christophe Krief (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I shouldn't think so. Stifle's comment probably means that this deletion review will be closed, and the page will be restored, but then it will be listed as an Article for Deletion ("AfD"). The AfD discussion will be linked back to this one.

  If this happens it will reverse the current situation. Instead of the article being gone but you arguing for its reinstatement, the article will be there but with others arguing for its removal. AfD debates last seven days, like deletion reviews.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I guess that a tag will be fitted on the page to keep everyone concerned aware of the deletion proposal. I would be interested to change what some have called the advertising style of the article... But I do not see it... I will be waiting for more info on this... Thanks for all your assistance Marshall--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - Speedies and prods should be applied only for "uncontroversial deletions" and in "the most obvious cases", otherwise it should be taken to AFD for a community discussion. That we are here shows, prima facie, that this deletion was not uncontroversial or obvious. There are sufficient references to show at least an assertion of notability. Therefore as a matter of due process, the article should be fully restored. I agree with much of what DGG says, including the need to remove the promotional tone. After restoration, there are several actions that might be taken. (1) It can be left to the author to improve, an action he seems more than willing to do, (2) It could be sent to WP:INCUBATE, (3) It could be userfied, or (4) As a very last resort, sent to AfD. However, as has been said at least a million times, AfD is not for cleanup. I suggest a snow close of this DRV with undeletion. — Becksguy (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete with the expectation that it will be taken to AfD very soon unless rewritten in a NPOV style, which may take someone uninvolved. Accusations of WP:COATRACK might be met by retitling it "Irish architects' registration dispute", which is its real subject. JohnCD (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I desagree with your new title and the WP:COATRACK. You may call the article "Irish architects' registration dispute" and in fact create a WP:COATRACK for the association's wrok. AAoI is the only group in this level of dispute with the Regsitration body. Plus the association was created because individualy members would be easy targets while using the title architect. You may also not be aware that the association includes a minority of non Irish architects. I am sorry if you find the article engaged, and I would be interested to have more details on the parts of the article that would need to be rectified. Maybe you mean that information against their position should be added. I would agree with that, and I will try to do so, but I thought that someone would add the material to balance the article rather than deleting it. Isn't wikipedia about working together? Thanks again to Thincat for all the reference work.--Christophe Krief (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we work together. When and if this goes to AfD I will personally help to rewrite it. The people posting here are giving their opinions at the moment, but you can rest assured that when the time comes, there are some who'll be prepared to help with the heavy lifting as well.  :)

    The present wording begins all right, with basic facts about the organisation, but by the end of the first paragraph it needs to say why the AAoI matters. This is sometimes called an "assertion of notability". For example, you might briefly list the AAoI's achievements so far, and say how many members it has and how many businesses it represents. The stuff about the founders is superfluous, we don't really need that. (If they're notable they should have their own articles, if not there should be less said about them). Then, however, the article goes off on a bizarre tangent because it stops talking about the AAoI at all and spends the more than half the article on an (admittedly persuasive) case statement railing against impositions made by the RIAI. That case statement belongs in Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, and indeed I see that it's already there; it should not be duplicated here.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am happy to hear that there will be some help even if I would have prefered more of you to participate right now, like Thincat. I have added a section "Critics and opposition". I was hopping that someonelse would do it for me as it is difficult to be at both ends of the subject. Now it is done, it may need additional materials. I think that it will be difficult to claim that the article is not well referenced now. I may have someothing from the AAoI website that could make a nice conclusion.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a kind of conclusion to the article, but I guess that some of you will find that it is drafted like an advertising. I hope that the "Critics and opposition" section and other insertions will satisfy those who though that only one point of view was expressed in the earlier version. I trust that it will also remove all assumptions of WP:COATRACK. Who will decide if I have done enough to prevent AFD? --Christophe Krief (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete refer to neutrality improvements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.130.35 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roy Clarke.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Image speedy deleted as replaceable despite dispute as to whether it was actually replaceable. Subject rarely makes public appearances and, as such, any replacement image of subject would be a screenshot, which is also nonfree. At least deserves a WP:IfD discussion. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The rule is that no replacement image could be found or could reasonably be created. It is a very high bar, and I am not satisfied it was cleared. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I'm asking is that a proper deletion discussion be undertaken to determine whether that high bar was cleared or not. I don't think that's unreasonable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Just because its hard doesn't mean it can't be done. Valid speedy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't mean it can be as well. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prove that it can't with evidence other then assertions. You are the one claiming it can't be done so the onus is on you to demonstrate that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that completely goes against all logic. How does one prove a negative? It's impossible and against all reason. There's a reason the saying is "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until proven innocent": it's impossible to prove someone 100% innocent, just as it is impossible to prove [i]any[/i] image as 100% irreplaceable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Logic? See ONUS. Its down to you to show that a free replaceable image cannot be produced. That you agree that its impossible to prove this shows that the image cannot possibly meet our NFCC. Case closed then... Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who has the burden is irrelevant here anyway. We say it's replaceable because it's a living person who is not inaccessible and sometimes even makes public appearances. In rebuttal, you say...what, exactly? Nothing relevant so far. "He's dead" would help, or "he's being held in a Turkish prison," or "he's dead and being held in a Turkish prison." postdlf (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, maybe, and NFCR, maybe. As a non-admin I can't see the deleted talk page so I have no idea to what extent the replacability issue was discussed prior to deletion. However, if there was any credible argument at all made that the image meets WP:NFCC, then it deserves a full discussion at WP:NFCR. This would be in everyone's interests because at present any editor is free to re-upload this image, and a new F7 process, complete with waiting times, would be required before it could be deleted. The present deletion review should not be concerned with the merits of the arguments used for and against deletion (which in this case means it should not be directly considering whether the image is replaceable) - it should be concerned with whether or not those arguments were given proper expression and consideration. I will trust and rely on the closer of this discussion to weight my comments here based on the extent to which pre-deletion discussion indicated a credible argument for retention. Thparkth (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For full disclosure,there wasn't much time for discussion as I was notified by a bot, not by the person who tagged the image, only a couple days before deletion. I added my rationale, but no one discussed it any further and the image was deleted two days after I added my rationale. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I checked, policy says nothing about notifying people other than the uploader. Moreover, images tagged as replaceable have only a two-day wait time, unlike images tagged for problems such as no source or no license. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am the uploader. I just don't use my account anymore, except to receive any messages. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm more tolerant than many regarding NFC usage, but I don't see that there was anything even to discuss here. The image was objectively and indisputably replaceable based on current consensus-supported interpretation of guidelines and policy. It was an image of a living person used only to show what he looked like, and not even in an article that was about him. That he "rarely makes public appearances" (emphasis added) isn't sufficient; we're not talking about a J.D. Salinger recluse or someone held in a Turkish prison. So I don't believe there is a credible argument at all that it passes NFCC. Regardless of whether it "should have" been listed at FFD, it would absolutely be deleted if it had been listed there, so let's not undelete it just for the sake of bureaucracy. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your argument, even if I disagree with it. I would note the image was used in the infobox for Roy Clarke as well as the Last of the Summer Wine article if that makes any difference. Also, I think it's still quite a feat of faulty logic to say that just because he isn't a recluse like Salinger or in a Turkish prisoner, the image is replaceable. Seems to be the burden of that should be on the person who claims the image is replaceable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non free criteria are in place to deliberatly limit the use of non-free material. The burden of demonstrating that the NFCC are met lies with the person wishing to upload/use the image. That is the burden on showing it to be irreplacable is yours, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that completely goes against all logic. How does one prove a negative? It's impossible and against all reason. There's a reason the saying is "innocent until proven guilty" and not "guilty until proven innocent": it's impossible to prove someone 100% innocent, just as it is impossible to prove [i]any[/i] image as 100% irreplaceable. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you mean it goes against your idea of logic, sorry you don't like it but it's quite well established. Your idea of the other side proving it to be replaceable is presumably that they do so by replacing it, i.e. someone else has to do the leg work. That's unacceptable if you beleive the picture is so significant it's for you to do that work. As already mentioned the purpose of the non-free criteria is to restrict the amount of non-free content, because the project is about free-content. It isn't supposed to be easy for you to introduce a non-free image. The simple logical arguement on the "it's replacable side" is that the person is alive, not locked away from the world, therefore someone taking a picture and releasing it freely is going to be possible, it may not be easy, but the policy is not "easily replaceable". The onus is on you to convince people that it won't be possible, that is a completely different bar from some sort of irrefutable proof. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The claim that a particular individual is reclusive has been determined, over and over, not to be a sufficient justification for allowing use of a nonfree image, aand no reason for making an excception to the general principle has been advanced here. The case against use of a nonfree image is particularly strong when the individual's appearance is wholly unrelated to notability, and the individual has never been a particularly recognizable public figure, since neither of the encyclopedic functions of identification nor critical commentary is served. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your argument but I'm not sure I completely understand it. No one has argued notability of the subject, although, as I noted above, it's simply false to imply that Last of the Summer Wine was the only article the image was used in; it was also used in Roy Clarke. I can see your argument as an argument against using it in Last of the Summer Wine but not against inclusion in general. If I have misinterpreted you, please correct me. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: notability, he meant that because his appearance is not tied to the career for which he is notable (he is not a model, actor, etc.), his physical appearance is much less important to his article. postdlf (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore for use in the bio article. People have faces, and though the degree it helps to understand them is not exactly direct or scientific, it provides an anchor for thinking about them. I know I am arguing for an extension of the NFCC criteria, to say that we should always have a photograph if one exists for an article about a person. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How does that vote relate to the NFCC? Also, been looking at the source, I'd be very very dubious that they actually own the image. So its likely a copy vio too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a publicity photo so they do not own it either. Please do not bring red herrings into the argument. 81.23.57.177 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, in that case the image was also incorrectly attributed as we need to reflect the original source so that the rights holder is correctly listed. So, that's another reason to delete this image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've admitted your !vote is inconsistent with policy; with the greatest of respect, I therefore request the closing admin to not consider it. You are of course welcome to campaign and gather consensus for a policy change in the correct locations. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • ... which, indeed, could only be at Foundation level, because the "no non-free images of living persons" rule comes right out of the Foundation image policy resolution [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the deleting admin. First off, the deleted image was found at this webpage. Moreover, there's no more reason to use this image than there is to use nonfree images of any other living person: our criteria are clear that nonfree images are unsuitable for illustrating living people, and this is not the place to argue for extending those criteria. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • My vote is not inconsistent with policy. It is admittedly inconsistent with the present interpretation of policy. The extent to which we avoid using NFCC goes way beyond what any rational interpretation of the policy would allow. When the present interpretation of policy leads to harm for the encyclopedia by preventing articles for being as helpful as they might be, its time to change our interpretation. I unfortunately doubt that we will do so right here, but we certainly could. I give my opinion that we ought to, and its as valid as an opinion otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't make much sense of that. On that basis I can declare almost anything to be "not inconsistent with policy", provided we change out interpretation of the relevant policy to something else. Policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, so how we currently apply policy is the policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't much room for reinterpretation in the wording of "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

precisely. The first clause of that sentence makes sense, the second does not. I don't think we can reasonably expect it in most cases in an relevant time frame to our users. NFCC is a balance, and will harm the encyclopedia at either extreme. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a quote from the foundation resolution, i.e. something we are bound by --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are firmly constrained to operate within the WMF's resolutions, and whether you feel a condition makes sense or not does not mean you, or anyone here, can ignore it. If you think the resolution ought to be clarified, then it is for you to contact the board and lobby for same. Good luck, you'll need it. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Regarding "... policy leads to harm for the encyclopedia", your reinterpretation of the policy of course also leads to harm to the free content encyclopedia by allowing more non-free content, the limit on that is precisely the purpose of the non-free content policy and corresponding foundation resolution. Reinterpreting the non-free content policy to be more permissive of non-free content is the irrationality, not the other way around. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as replaceable by our current definition, and I want to strongly disagree with what DGG says above. If NFCC is going to be reinterpreted, it should not be done on this page but on the relevant policy talk pages, which DGG certainly knows. Chick Bowen 01:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (1) Are images like this normally deleted under enwiki policy? Yes. (2) Does the policy statement WP:NFCC mandate such a deletion? I am not sure but this is not crucial because such documents are merely descriptive of policy-based behaviour and may not be worded appropriately. (3) Does the guideline WP:NFC mandate such a deletion? Yes but this is not crucial because such documents only guide policy-based behaviour. (4) Does the Foundation requirement wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy (which is utterly crucial) require such a deletion? I'm not immediately sure because the most relevant statement "material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals" seems not to reflect actuality and is therefore obscure. However, from reading the whole document my subjective view is that non-free images used in the current sort of circumstances should be deleted (but I have the greatest respect for the view that this is not, in fact, the meaning of the document). (5) Should the image have been speedily deleted? This discussion evidences that the deletion was controversial. However, it was reasonable for the parties to the deletion to believe that the case was obvious according to normal enwiki behaviour. ... but I am open to correction on any of this. Thincat (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Clearly and unambiguously fails WP:NFCC#1. I fail to see what needs to be argued here. –MuZemike 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - WP:NFCC is what it is, and this image unquestionably fails it. DRV is for overturning deletions if it can be shown that the closing administrator made a mistake in applying policy, not for overturning deletions because someone doesn't like the policy and wishes it said something different to what it actually says. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

<Decision was not notable. He is published in DJ Times November 2009 Issue Pg 41. Charted as number 6 Most Added Track and #38 above Diddy and Lil Wayne> 24.77.214.173 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Got anything more reliable? Stifle (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he's also charting with his new song. http://www.starfleetmusic.com/record_pool/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2166:top-50-dance-chart-3162011&catid=26:dance-charts&Itemid=55 #33 and on http://watch.muchmusic.com/artists-a-z/c/carvelli/clip14157524.77.214.173 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They don't seem too useful. The first gives no idea as to the basis of the chart (that I could find), has horrible mistakes like "DROP BY OUR WEB SIGHT" and states one the donations area "Donations are always appreciated and can even help grease the wheels a little :)" which doesn't do much to inspire confidence in neutrality. The standard of WP:MUSIC is a countries national music chart, that isn't a countries national music chart. The second of those doesn't work for me in so far as the video has been unavailable on the few separate times I visited the link, however after some digging around it appears they accept submission of content [7] so appearing their probably doesn't indicate too much anyway (i.e. I could make my own video and submit it) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to some of his old ongs on Allmusic.com http://www.allmusic.com/artist/carvelli-p1942664/songs 24.77.214.173 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that shows very little also, as allmusic say "AMG will add any product submissions we receive to the database as long as they are commercially available in their country of release. The best way to ensure that your title receives full coverage is for you to send us one copy of the product along with any relevant promotional materials, such as press releases and artist photos.", so send it them and they'll put it up, it doesn't indicate notability in any way. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, I'm failing to see anything meeting our usual standards of reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His 2001 song New York Angels received an award for his 2001 tribute song to 9/11. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2010/7552/pdf/Popularmusik_32_S175_208.pdf and here's a write-up on the song and what donations he made from sales of the song. http://gajoob.indieonestop.com/info.php?resourcecategory=Artist&resourcetitle=&resourcetext=&resourcecontactinfo=&checkpassword=&startitem=165 24.77.214.173 (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again can't see how this helps. The first doesn't appear to be an award, the only mention is in a long list of tribute songs and the text notes that this is only a subset and that many of these were amateur efforts. It's not significant coverage, merely a "directory" listing. The second seems to be a submission by the subject to a website specialising in publishing such, so again not independant significant coverage. On the general point, merely contributing or associating with a cause doesn't make someone notable. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

NWearly (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After emailing with an Admin, I was sent here.

The "Noteworthy" page was deleted because it was seen to be notable enough for an article. However, it fits more than one of the requirements for Wikipedia Notability.

The most obvious claim is #10 and #12 on the list of Notability requirements for musicians and ensembles. Noteworthy performed on NBC's The Sing-Off season 1 and while on the show performed 4 songs. They also appeared in the finale episode and were in commercials for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd episode.

(#1) Noteworthy has been mentioned in the following: (No BYU articles included)

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23611178/ http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/article_d4ac2384-122f-11df-9584-001cc4c03286.html http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/the-sing-off/ http://www.acappellanews.com/archive/2009_11.html http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2009/12/oregon_well-represented_on_the.html http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705348950/BYUs-Noteworthy-to-compete-in-a-cappella-sing-off.html http://www.casa.org/node/6233 http://www.homorazzi.com/article/the-sing-off-nick-lachey-competition-nbc-a-capella-beezlebubs-nota-byu-noteworthy-nicole-sherzinger/ http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/12/15/the-sing-off-ben-folds/ http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705351369/BYU-singers-to-compete-in-The-Sing-Off.html http://ldsliving.com/story/60382-noteworthy-byu-musicians-perform-on-nbc/print

Noteworthy was also in a Hong Kong newspaper while the group performed there for Hong Kong's International A Cappella Festival, but I failed to find a copy because of translation issues.

(#9) Noteworthy won the 2007 International Competition of Collegiate A Cappella

Noteworthy also has over 2 million total views on You Tube videos, has two of their three albums on itunes, and for the past three years has been nominated and won International A Cappella awards for arranging, vocal percussion, albums, soloists, and choreography.

Noteworthy fulfills all requirements stated by Wikipedia to deserve an article. There are dozens of other collegiate a cappella groups that have a wikipedia article (SoCal VoCals, Vocal Point, Beelzebubs, On the Rocks (University of Oregon) --This one in particular just looks like as advertisement for their group's CD's--, Boston University Dear Abbeys, Binghamton Crosbys, University of California Men's Octet, and others). Most of these groups have few to no notable references by the wikipedia guidelines, and now Noteworthy has provided several.

Please allow to have the Noteworthy page undeleted.

Sergeant Hatred (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is one of a list of articles of characters from this show, all of which so far seem to have resulted in redirects (1, 2, 3 to give a few examples). Those were the main characters; I'm not sure how this more minor character's AfD discussion should be interpreted differently. While it seems there was a mix of delete and redirect votes, it seems that there was a clear consensus that this should be redirected, since all the delete votes did not give good reasons for it not to be redirected, and (although I know it's not a majority vote) there was only one keep vote (even the rescue tag didn't really bring in keep !votes, but redirect ones.) Yaksar (let's chat) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) {{subst:drv2[reply]

• Endorse Assume good faith. The rescue tag isn't about bringing in keep votes. The keep vote found a valid news source giving adequate coverage to this character. The two creators of the show go into detail about the character during an interview. [8] There are plenty of other places that mention the character but its a lot to sort through. I was considering changing my vote from redirect to keep based on what was found. If reliable sources exist, then the article should be kept. And what happened with other articles, has no bearing to this article. Different situation here. Dream Focus 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where I could possibly have not assumed good faith here, but whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, though my reasoning is not at all the same as Dream Focus'. Stifle's close doesn't preclude redirecting this article. What the close said was that there was no consensus to delete it—in other words, what Stifle found was that Sergeant Hatred shouldn't be a redlink. You're very welcome to redirect it, and I'm sure that if you'd discussed this with the closer before raising the DRV, that would have been your answer.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closer indicates that they prefer it to be taken to DRV rather than discuss it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very fair point and quite true. Would you be happy for me to redirect it now, and for this DRV then to be closed?—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did try redirecting it, but it was undone, which I guess happened because there was technically no "consensus" for it. The problem with the closure is not that I wanted deletion, but I'm kinda trying to go by something a bit more common sensey (forgive me for what I've screwed up, this is my first DRV and I'm not totally familiar with the process). It's pretty impossible to tell someone that an article should be redirected and to achieve consensus for it outside of an AfD, so I was hoping this rather obvious solution could be reached through this method.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see that and it's not right. There was no consensus to delete the article but there was certainly a consensus that it shouldn't be kept in its current form. I've re-created the redirect. If I get reverted too, then I'll hope someone uninvolved will consider sterner measures.—S Marshall T/C 01:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Just redirect the damn thing, that's what the consensus was. Reyk _YO! 03:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, a redirect seems the right way to go here. I'd suggest engaging with the un-redirecting editor, seeking a Wp:3O, or starting an WP:RFC on the topic. DRV doesn't really handle the minutiae of editing once a gross keep v. delete decision has been made... Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. JJ98 (Talk) 05:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect While there was no consensus to delete this article (it was nearly 50:50 deletion vs. merging), there was overwhelming consensus to not have this as a separate article. Now WP has to deal with the silly "Oh, it's no consensus so default to keep as a separate article". I am sure this is not what Stifle intended. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own closure, there was no consensus whatsoever to delete the article and variations on which particular brand of not-delete to apply to the article can and should be taken up through the talk page or WP:BOLDness. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I think it could have easily been closed as a "redirect" as well, but I think some admins don't like to impose that, considering it to be purely an editorial decision. So, leave this DRV be and if ppl are agreeing that it should remain a redirect, then that's the way to go. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as said by by Dream Focus. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Close. Already redirected. No admin action required here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh hey, yeah, I kinda forgot about this. I'm sure this can be closed, since a solution seems to have been reached.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with sgeureka, there was an obvious consensus against a standalone article. I would lean toward endorsing if it were less clear. DRV tends to group non-delete outcomes together, but I think that is inconsistent with WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect, which concluded that merge and redirect are valid recommendations distinct from keep. After this AfD, the onus should be on Onthegogo to justify a separate article, not on Yaksar. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest X-30 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

H.I.S.S. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are background and discussion with the closing admin at User talk:Jayjg#G.I. Joe vehicles (permanent link).

Abridged summary:

1. Each article was deleted as result of its respective AfD.
2. They were restored as redirects, with full page history underneath.
3. Content was merged to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles.
4. The redirects were re-deleted.

According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Merge and delete, once content has been copied, the history of the source page cannot be deleted unless 1) an attribution workaround is used or 2) the copied content is permanently removed (deleted). The easiest fix is to restore the articles and redirect them to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles. At this point, I think that a simple restore/redirect is the proper solution. I don't agree with the restorations, and I would like to discuss what process (if any) is appropriate before restoring articles for merging. Should they be treated as uncontroversial, something that WP:Requests for undeletion would be willing to handle? Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a notice for this DRV at WT:Requests for undeletion#Restoring for merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the AfDs and Jayjg's closing statement in particular, I struck my comment about the restorations. I do prefer discussion over repeated restoring/deleting. Flatscan (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete and redirect also trout slap Jayjg. He stated in his deletion rationale he no objection to merging, but proceded to delete the redirect repeatedly when it was actually done. Wp:Merge and delete this way is not compatible with our licensing, which an experienced admin should know. As this is not a confusing redirect there is no reason to delete it and use something more complicated to satisfy attribution requirements. Yoenit (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two questions to consider here.

  (1) What process is appropriate before restoring articles for merging? — If the consensus at the AfD is that a merge would be appropriate, no further "process" seems necessary to me. I can imagine that there might be times when it was appropriate to restore the material to someone's userspace, or to a temporary page, rather than to the redirect location, but this is down to administrator judgment. The administrator must at all times ensure that proper attribution is maintained, but it's for the administrator to decide whether this should be done by a dummy edit with an appropriate edit summary or by a link to the restored content. Once the merge has been performed the administrator may clean up in any way that seems appropriate to him, once again provided that the administrator has ensured that proper attribution is maintained at all times.

  (2) Should they be treated as uncontroversial? — Not necessarily, some of these may be highly controversial. This is another matter for administrator judgment.

  I want to clarify that when I say, "the administrator", I mean "the administrator who closed the AfD or performed the speedy deletion". Administrators, in the normal course of things, must be sure they don't leave attribution messes for others to clean up. I also want to clarify that, even in situations where there might be times when the material to be merged should not be restored to article space before the merge, preserving attribution is not optional.—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it seems that everyone agrees that redirects at these titles are fine (Jayjg only seems to object to the content appearing under them), I've gone ahead and created them as redirects again. Conquest X-30 redirects to the list, while H.I.S.S. redirects to Hiss, a disambiguation page. I don't presume that someone searching for H.I.S.S. necessarily wants to know about the G.I. Joe vehicle, but anyone may change this if I'm wrong here.
  As far as licensing requirements go, a simple mention of the source only suffices if the history itself is still available there (or a pointer to where the history is exists there). Proper attribution requires that individual authors be identified for each piece of the text, which generally cannot be done without the actual edit history. Because of this, I suggest that we undelete the history of the two pages under the redirects (or deleting my redirects, I don't care). The edit summaries used in the merger refer to these two pages as the sources, so they are the logical choice for edit history location. Other solutions exist, but I see no reason to complicate matters by using them. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be some misunderstanding here, neither the GFDL or CC require "that individual authors be identified for each piece of the text" for most media that would be a hugely onerous task if not impossible. Neither license is specific to wiki content. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word-by-word attribution is not required – an advantage of CC-BY-SA is attribution by a List of authors. This allows things like revdel'ing the edit contents of large ranges (leaving usernames visible). Since such suppressions and deletions are rare, most content can be traced back to its original editor, who can then be consulted. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore history. When we delete an article and change it to a redirect, the normal procedure is to keep the material in the history. The only exception to this is when the material is actually harmful in some way--either as a copyright violation, a BLP violation, possible outrageous promotionalism, etc. Not for mere lack of notability. For mere lack of notability, the remedy is to not have a separate article. AfD is appropriate for that, and a redirect with the history behind the redirect is a very suitable way of handling it. I have sometimes defended keeps in such circumstances, not because I really think the material necessarily deserves a separate article, but specifically in order to keep the sort of abuse that took place here--of removing history, or of pretending to do a merge and not actually merging the content. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the histories available of best practice of our own licensing rules. If we don't respect our licensing rules, how can we complain when others subsequently don't? If there's any reason, the redirects can be protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history with protected redirects in order to prevent people restoring the articles and making an end-run around deletion process. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history per Stifle, DGG, and SmokeyJoe. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history to provide attribution per above. There are other solutions, but this is the easiest and there's nothing objectionable about the content to be restored. Hut 8.5 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water Tribe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Air Nomads (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two years before the AfD, these two articles had been merged (January 2009) into Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender, a combination article. Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender was itself redirected in August 2009. I attempted to contact the closing admin at User talk:Cirt/Archive 16#Water Tribe AfD, but Cirt has been inactive. I suggested moving them to talk subpages, per WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page, to respect the AfD's delete outcome by keeping the pages out of article space.

According to WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Merge and delete, once content has been copied, the history of the source page cannot be deleted unless 1) an attribution workaround is used or 2) the copied content is permanently removed (deleted). The easiest fix is to restore the articles and redirect them somewhere appropriate. Air Nomads has been recreated as a redirect to Aang, which seems fine. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds sensible to me; that attribution history is needed in case the article at Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender is restored again. It can happen. It's happened a couple of times already, although not lately. :) Given, though, that Water Tribe was itself repeatedly restored from the consensus redirect, I prefer your talk subpage suggestion to help avoid further bypassing of consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me, too. If we do leave the history at talk subpages, I also suggest dummy edits to Water Tribe and Air Nomads noting this, so the histories can still be found easily by anyone who cares to look. As a side note, I've recreated Water Tribe as a redirect matching Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom and comments above sound sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reconsidered after thinking it over. If redirects are desired, I think it's best to restore and redirect, without moving to talk subpages. Problems with recreation should be addressed with the appropriate level of edit protection. In this case, the only advantage to talk subpages is that they're slightly more difficult for consensus-defying editors to find. Once found, the pages can be moved back to article space or copied over the redirect, unless protection prevents that. Obscurity and the various protections also work against everyone else, impeding maintenance and legitimate moves of the parent. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, redirect, and protect per Flatscan. RFPP then becomes the obvious place to go if someone wants to restore the material. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the redirections are due to this AfD, I prefer DRV over WP:Requests for page protection for requesting recreation, but either is okay. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cort and Fatboy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted in February after a short review where an admin did not take several factors into account. Among them, he called The Oregonian, the most widely circulated publication in Oregon, a "blog." I created a new page under the show's revised title, "Cort and Fatboy" (originally "The Cort and Fatboy Show"). I bulked up this new article with citations from the Associated Press along with several, large-circulation publications from Oregon including The Oregonian and Willamette Week. I spent a goodly amount of time on this project as well. I've discussed this issue with the two admins involved. Both of them suggested that I submit a deletion review.

Based on the national attention the show has received and the citations I acquired, I feel that Cort and Fatboy, despite the less than witty title, is more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, especially in light of the ever-growing number of articles on the site and the increasing minutia and localized focus of their content. At least one other program on Cascadia FM, which hosts Cort and Fatboy, has an article on Wikipedia. I would be happy to revise the article in whatever manner you see fit but I humbly request that you take another look at this case and the circumstances. This article should not have been deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumptowner (talk • contribs) 23:24, March 18, 2011

• Overturn. The AfD cited in the G4 was closed as a speedy under G7, which (one assumes) does not still apply. lifebaka++ 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• With all due respect for Lifebaka, "overturn" is the wrong language here because NawlinWiki's original deletion was quite reasonable and within process. I would prefer to say allow recreation, but for the avoidance of doubt NawlinWiki's earlier close is still endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more specific, I only mean to overturn the most recent G4 deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Temporarily undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AFD. While the original AFD had 2 delete !votes it was only open for a day before the author requested deletion so there's no way to know if other editors might have showed up in the next 6 days with sound keep rationales. Therefore, CSD G4 should not have applied. Furthermore, in my view a G7 delete should be treated just the same as an expired PROD. The fact that the article was recreated and the second deletion challenged here shows that the deletion was controversial. Therefore, the proper venue for discussing whether or not we should have an article on this subject is AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original deletion because, as S Marshall says, there was no mistake or wrongdoing by the closer of the AfD, but allow recreation because obviously the situation has changed since then. Reyk _YO! 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the consensus seems to be in favor of restoring the article. Where should things go from here? Stumptowner (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As several have noted, while the deletion itself was both reasonable and in-process, it does seem likely that the consensus is to restore the article and send it immediately to AfD for a more thorough discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my confusion. I read through the instructions on "Articles for Deletion" and that seems to be a place to discuss articles that are up, well, for deletion. My goal here is save the page, not delete it. So...I should still post this debate there? Stumptowner (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the right place. People are saying that it be restored, but not unconditionally. They are saying that, given current circumstances, a fuller deletion debate is needed. Speedy deletion is for specific limited circumstances. The page appears to have met those circumstances previously, but enough doubt has been raised that people are saying that it now deserves a debate. It's a step forward towards having the article remain, but the article would still need to show it's worth at the following full deletion debate. AFD debates are far, far from a rubber stamp for deletion. If one is started, you'll get your chance to argue against deletion at that point in time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well. That's what Ron Ritzman was saying. I was saying "allow recreation" without the need for an AfD—although if the article that's created in the space isn't satisfactory an AfD could always follow. If I read the comments from Lifebaka and Reyk correctly, I think that's also their view.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If a deletion discussion is shortcut by a speedy, then the XfD is not valid for the purposes of subsequent G4's. The same or other speedy deletion criteria might apply, but G4 is only for fully formed XfD discussions, not PRODs or speedies. In addition, it sounds like the content was substantially different enough that G4 should have been off the table to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 You can't G4 a speedy so the last deletion is invalid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fellows of the Royal Society of Arts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the discussion was very one-sided and short, although I agree the decision was right for the discussion that occurred. Previously there were not references to the fact that this is an award and an honour, not just a membership of a society. I have added a selection of references under FRSA. More could be added if needed. With this new information, I believe that this category should be restored. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think it is overstating the case to say that FRSA is "an award and an honour". The Society's website more or less solicits applications and the application form only requires naming some referees, who need not even themselves be members. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are references demonstrating that it is considered an award and honour under FRSA. Some people are invited to become fellows based on their achievements. Those that apply must still demonstrate relevant achievement. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how being one sided invalidates the discussion, there is no requirement that a certain number of people voice requirements on each side, and indeed being one-sided suggests a strong consensus exists on that side. There is also no quorum so the number of participants isn't important. As such I can't see this as a DRV issue, there is/was nothing faulty with the debate or the close. If the category can be recreated is more as to if it overcomes the reasons for deletion, which as I read it was largely about it being a defining characteristic, which I can't see has changed any. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is seen as a defining characteristic by Fellows since they are elected. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but your belief is merely you disagreeing with those who opined in the debate, and merely disagreeing is not a matter for DRV, it isn't a court of appeal where people commenting here get to overturn the opinion of those who participated in the debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jonathan's objection to the outcome appears to be based on the premise that the participants in the CFD underestimated the significance of election to the RSA. It was my suggestion to initiate a deletion review if he could demonstrate, by reference to reliable sources, that significant information (about the defining-ness of election to the RSA) was not considered during the debate. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Most category discussions are very little attended, and this one is of more general interest, and should have been more widely discussed. In any case, it is not a vote, and In the discussion, BHG gives sufficient reasons for keeping it that the admin should have recognized the correctness or sought further input. --that it is not open to anyone, but the referees etc are intended as a screening process, and the net result is 27,000 members. It's accepted that being a member is not sufficient evidence for notability. But many members will be notable. It's like being an alumnus of a college--not all graduates of Cambrdge are notable , but some of them are, and for the ones who are , we have a category for them. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG did point out that the RSA is not "open to anyone with the fee", but she also wrote: "I think it's [election to the RSA] too widely-distributed to be a defining characteristic, so I won't oppose deletion." Relisting may have been called for if she had opposed deletion, but relisting discussions where all participants essentially are in agreement does not seem to be good practice.
    I share your desire for more in-depth participation at CFD and other deletion venues, but we must work with what we have; and, on 3 February 2011, the average number of participants per discussion was 4.4 (less than the 5 that participated in the FRSA discussion). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best way of attracting people, is for more questioned CfDs to come here. Nobody can follow every page in Wikipedia, but we should aim at getting more appeals from the obscurer places. Perhaps some other groups of processes could have a similar system to Del Rev. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, with a qualification. It should be possible to revisit any deletion discussion, no matter how many editors participated in it, if it is thought that significant information has come to light or was not considered during the original debate. However, the number of participants by itself is secondary, in my view, if nothing new can be said.
        Another possibility for increasing participation would be through more extensive deletion sorting, though I suppose discussions at this level are more suited to WT:CFD than deletion review. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist so that Jonathan Bowen can has his say, and debate it. Someone new wanting to get involved in CfD is a great thing to be welcomed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E.ON Kernkraft GmbH (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Since Fukushima I do a lot of work on nuclear energy articles. And it is very disturbing to me to see articles of companies that produce nuclear energy deleted. It only said A7 in the explanation. Very disturbing these deletions. Thank you. I stop creating new content until this is resolved. NuclearEnergy (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally would say that saying that a group oversees a number of nuclear power plants is a pretty strong assertion of notability. That said, the article as it was (or at least what I see in the cache) doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ORG. I'd prefer the deleting admin undid the speedy and sent to AfD. I don't speak German, but I am seeing 6 news articles that seem to mention this organization in the last few weeks. Seems likely it could be sourced. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the current nuclear power crisis in Japan, I think our users will be looking for articles like this about their local nuclear facilities, so I have ignored the rules/guidelines for now and undeleted the page. Someone will need to develop the article so it meets WP:N or WP:ORG otherwise it's likely to get sent to AfD. This company is a subsidiary of E.ON, if the page can't be developed to meet our guidelines - perhaps a redirect to E.ON would be useful. --Versageek 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Bolshevik Tendency (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improper close; correct "read" of the debate was NO CONSENSUS; serious difference of opinion among debate participants as to level of necessary sourcing for inclusion-worthiness of an article on a small political group. Closing administrator flippantly ignored serious arguments of those with whom they disagreed without ruling on specific merits of their case. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep !votes were very weak. They key question is if WP:N is met, not if folks find this useful. Given that it was a pretty poor debate on the keep side, I'd be keen to see if people (Carrite in particular) can come up with a few sources that are independent of the group and cover it in some detail. I'm finding a number of news stories and books that mention this group (or are published by it), but nothing in depth. If those can be found, I strongly suspect the closing admin would overturn his closure. If not, deletion was the right result. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist there was no consensus to delete. As Hobbit says, there was also no real consensus to keep, and the options were therefore relist or close as no-consensus. Either way, that would yield a new discussion at AfD , which is the place to discuss the sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think the delete arguments were strong enough that the deletion outcome isn't unreasonable. But those arguing to keep were arguing on the ITSUSEFUL basis rather than WP:N or our actual inclusion guidelines. I'm hopeful that is is due to a misunderstanding and that there are goods sources out there and that the nom or someone else can find them (I've not found anything I consider enough for WP:N though I only looked for 5 minutes or so). Hobit (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- on the strength of the arguments presented, this was not a close no reasonable admin could make. AfD is not a vote, and the closing administrator was right to give more weight to arguments that examined the state of the article and availability of sources. Reyk _YO! 22:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Reyk: the deletion arguments seem so much stronger to me than the keep ones that I think T. Canen's close was correct. I do think there might be grounds for a small clue level adjustment about WP:BITE as it applies to AfD closing statements, though, Timotheus. We're supposed to be more collegial and respectful than this.—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Reyk. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. I simply feel that the arguments supporting deletion are stronger in this case. I don't think the closing administrator was ingoring any serious opposing arguments, there was enough strong consensus. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and endorse The interesting thing about this is that a consensus had clearly developed early in the discussion... which went on for TWO MONTHS because the nomination was incomplete and hadn't been picked up properly. Then, once that had happened, the arguments became higher quality and tended to favor deletion. Thus, we really have two separate deletion discussions: the first consensus was keep, which I would endorse, and the second consensus was delete, which I would also endorse. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris DeRosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are several references to support keeping this article some of which are: http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001252/Chris%20DeRosa and http://www.moderndrummer.com/md-blogs-archive/300001352/Chris%20DeRosa

He is listed on many recordings and is also in several national/international music videos: http://wn.com/Melba_Moore_Phil_Perry_Performing_Weakness - 98.14.146.247 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The first two references are written by deRosa himself; as far as I can see the third doesn't mention him. What's needed is evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now. I looked into this carefully when I filed the original AfD, which then sat without comment for an eternity. DeRosa is pretty young and obviously a fairly successful session artist for his age. Just by having a normal jazz career, he'll probably end up with sufficient coverage to merit an article at some point. But right now, the reliable sources to write an article consistent with the biographies of living people policy just don't seem to be there. Chick Bowen 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - The AfD had no "votes" except for the nom. I think the secondary coverage demonstrated above is significant and solidly so to warrent passing WP:BIO. Don't see any WP:BLP violations here.--Oakshade (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Don't know - It seems he might pass WP:MUSIC as he has been a drummer with many notable jazz artists, but I wish there was secondary coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think recreation with sources would of course be allowable. But my "endorse" above was meant to oppose specifically undeletion of unsourced content. As for sources, could you be more specific? I still have not seen any significant coverage. Chick Bowen 02:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Drummer coverage linked above. --Oakshade (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Ahh, just realized that source isn't secondary as the topic is the writer.--Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kelly (rugby league) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am Richard Kelly and I created the article you have deleted along with articles about my two older brothers, Andrew & Neil Kelly Rugby League. In the one source you have found you say that it doesnt even say if I played yet the ? Is there because they can't put a figure on HOW MANY games I played , they are not questioning whether I played. Also in the same reference it states that I scored points, how could I have done this if I hadn't played? Please reinstate the article and I will then endeavour to add further references and verified sources to establish the authenticity. Thank you. Here is another link from the BBC referring to me as a former Wakefield Trinity player:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/wakefield/9379351.stm

In the link posted above from the BBC it states in the text that Richard is a former Wakefield player and in the interview with Richard Kelly the fact that he was a Wakefield Trionity player was brought up on numerous occasions. Richard has two older brothers who also played pro rugby league and there is substantive evidence that they played and that Richard is their brother. I also requested that this page was not deleted as I am waiting for articles about Richard Kelly to be delivered to me in the next couple of weeks. I am also waiting for back copies of the monthly rugby league magazine which have articles that feature Richard Kelly's time at Wakefield Trinity and once received I already have permission to post images from the articles on wikipedia. There is also a published book called Wakefield Sporting Catholics which features all three brothers and details their upbringing and path through to professional sports. I will obtain permission from the publishers and author to post a link and image of the relevant pages on wikipedia.

The point is that the article is authentic and there is already evidence that it is so. As can be seen by my comments above I will be adding to the article and my desire to seek an undulation should be seen as my commitment to conform to wikipedias standards by adding information.

Thank you

I will continue my search to find further evidence of Richard Kelly's Rugby League career but I hpe you will recognise that he played during an era which was not blessed by by the convenience of the internet and web pages.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would reinstate the page you deleted and afford me the time to add further supportive articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlofvl (talk • contribs) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy seems like the correct outcome here. Vlofv1 deserves the chance to add references to his material.—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and encourage new editor to make a new article. Read WP:COI for advice, but if the subject is Wikipedia-notable, all contributions are welcome. When well sourced, move to mainspace. Ask User:Vlofvl to provide some basic information about himself on his userspace, so as to disclose any possible perceived conflicts of interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am the editor that originally nominated the article for deletion and have absolutely no problem with userfication. Also agree with SmokeyJoe that Vlofv1 should first have on his user page a full discloser as to who he is and his relationship to the subject of any other articles that he edits. J04n(talk page) 02:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:NYyankees51/heartbeat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An editor changed my userbox without my permission and acknowledged that he went over the line. I reported it to WP:ANI here. A discussion ensued on my talkpage about the userbox and I changed it at the request of several users. However, User:Bishonen deleted and salted the userbox, citing consensus at ANI and claiming WP:NOTSOAPBOX applies. I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the best argument, but my userbox was no more controversial than any other userbox. It was stating a simple scientific and medical fact. It did not contain advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Thanks for your consideration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NYyankees51 (talk • contribs)

• Requesting temporary undeletion I'd like to know what it was before commenting further. LiteralKa (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Prodego ^talk 14:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks, Prodego. I've explained my reason for the deletion on my page; I'm crossposting it below for convenience.

In my opinion, I had good reason to speedy delete that userbox. Personally, I dislike all political userboxes, and therefore dislike all or nearly all of NYyankees51 boxes; but that wasn't the reason I deleted the "heartbeat" box. Political boxes are currently allowed, and I go by that, not by my personal opinion. The reason for my deletion was instead that I don't think the heartbeat box is a userbox at all. Consider the definition on Wikipedia:Userboxes:

A userbox is a small colored box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles.

The userbox definition will perhaps stand some stretching—many boxes are social rather than being anything to do with collaborating effectively, and the community seems to like it like that—but not this much. The main problem is that the heartbeat box is not a communicative notice about NYyankees51; it's more like a polemical statement on a forum (compare WP:NOTFORUM). Socially, it's extremely aggressive, and I'm quite unimpressed by NYyankees51's defense that it's merely "medical fact" etc. Sorry, NYyankees51, but there is no way you can be unaware of how touchy and inflammatory this issue is. My WP:AGF will only go so far. Bishonen | talk 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn This is not a clear enough issue for speedy. The discussion at ANI IMHO did not constitute a propper deletion discussion even if you believe there was consensus. This should have been discussed an an WP:MFD for true consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Supposing I wanted to post a photo of a woman lying on a morgue slab due to having botched an abortion during the "coat hanger days". Would that be acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, no. But I don't think it should be speedied either. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and send to MfD. No speedy criteria fits and there is no reason not to wait for MfD. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion, for reasons given here: [9]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletions that occur outside usual processes must be entirely uncontroversial. Clearly this is not the situation in this case and while I accept that Bishonen's intentions were good, the deletion was an abuse of admin tools and Bishonen would be advised not to act in a similar way in future. The comments on whether this is or is not a userbox and whether it is suitable is entirely an opinion and not supported by current policies or the consensus in the ANI discussion. Overturn and send to MfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polemics are always based on an opinion, and that's the problem here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion Not a forum and all that. This has zero to do with building an encyclopedia. RxS (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion As RxS said. Has no reason to exist here other than to cause disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• support deletion per JoeSperranzza andRxS - cannot see how this fits into the guideline for acceptable userboxes Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion It clearly does not fit the definition or purpose of a userbox. No matter how dear a cause is to person's heart, a Wikipedia user page is not the place to promote such causes, particularly when they are known to be related to controversial or inflammatory topics. It is utterly disingenuous of the author to claim that the juxtaposition of image and text is "a simple scientific and medical fact". I also have problems in stretching AGF to the statements claiming that the box as a whole "did not contain advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, an opinion piece, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising as per WP:NOTSOAPBOX", when it quite clearly contains almost all of those elements – and everyone here knows that. There's no point in wasting more time on an MfD for process' sake as the deletion was well within policy. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per the rationale given by the deleting sysop [10]. To my mind this userbox is not a simple expression of a pro-life position rather it is an aggressive statement designed to create drama and provoke others. Further, Bishonen's action was appropriately bold. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Fits no criteria for speedy deletion. ANI is not where deletions are discussed, give it a turn at MFD. Buddy431 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there can be a whole other lengthy debate over its "encyclopedic value"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - IAR applies. MfD will only extend the drama, especially given the stance of the userbox. Good delete, userbox was clearly not appropriate or valuable to the project. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This isn't a userbox; it's a pro-life bumper sticker. It seems rather obviously designed to advance a partisan point of view on a contentious topic, and it's actually a bit insulting to our intelligence to pretend that it's simply a disinterested observation about human embryology. I don't see any point in throwing up additional roadblocks or hoops for admins who delete material inappropriate for Wikipedia. The demands for process for the sake of process are exactly why this site is, ultimately, doomed.

  More to the point, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics#Abortion contains a wide selection of userboxes which, whatever their failings, at least meet the actual definition of a userbox. If one feels absolutely compelled to proselytize on the subject, those should be more than sufficient. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. This contentious statement exists in the userbox without context, cited source or rebuttal. Combative assertions do not belong in an encyclopedia, even on a userpage. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. How is this userbox different from having the text part of the user's page? If that statement is permitted on a user page, then you don't need the userbox; if it isn't, then the userbox shouldn't exist. -- llywrch (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that reasoning all userboxes should be deleted. How is having any userbox different to having the text part of the user page? Reyk _YO! 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If my userbox must be deleted, I only ask that you be consistent in your application of policy. That means deleting most everything on this page. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already mentioned "I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not the best argument". JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are times when WP:WAX is a relevant argument. This is one of those times. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, NYY, you may be on to something. You nominate 'em and we'll do our best to delete 'em. --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion per SOAPBOX and POLEMIC. A review of NYY's primary editing is insightful; lots of soapboxing and polemics:
  • Susan B. Anthony List, Bobby Schilling, Restoring Honor rally, Talk:Restoring Honor rally, Lila Rose, Talk:Lila Rose, March for Life, Republican Party of Virginia, Conservative Political Action Conference, Live Action (organization), Talk:Live Action (organization), Abby Johnson (activist).
    I also find irony; "I'm on your side" amidst declaiming WP:BATTLEGROUND re Crisis pregnancy center.
    So, it would seem we have yet another political partisan not here to build the project, but to import their real-world POV.
    nb: I would support the deletion of most user boxes; at least Kelly had that right. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally, I'm thoroughly pro-choice, but this speedy makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I see there's a sudden influx of users who normally inhabit AN/I, and I welcome that, but I also think that in view of this influx, there might need to be a little education about DRV and how it works. If this is closed by one of the regular DRV closers, then AN/I-style quickfire pile-on opinion statements might not cut quite as much ice as you think.

  DRV's role is to see that the deletion processes are correctly followed, which is why we traditionally take a dim view of "IAR speedies". I think most DRV regulars would accept that there could be times when an IAR speedy was appropriate, but was this one of them?

  Wikipedia isn't censored, and although the article space must be strictly NPOV, it's right that a degree of soapboxing is tolerated in userspace. In any speedy deletion save the very clear-cut ones, there's (quite rightly) a presumption that we will provide FairProcess to good-faith users on request. It's not enough that we make the right decision: we must be seen to make the right decision. So the starting point is that this case belongs at MfD rather than as a speedy, unless there's a genuine policy basis for it.

  The background and context is also relevant. Sue Gardner begins a discussion here which is partly about the extent to which the social aspect of Wikipedia can be enhanced in order to build a community. That discussion has yet to reach any conclusions, but we can hope that during the seven days of this DRV (and during any subsequent MFD), a consensus could begin to emerge that might inform the final decision we make.

  Against that background, we have various arguments to endorse the deletion being raised under the unconventional heading "Support deletion". These arguments are generally very brief, phrased in the emphatic declarative, and either don't have anything to do with the criteria for speedy deletion, or else misapply a rule (such as the various suggestions that it's uncited). To be clear: userboxes don't have to have anything to do with building an encyclopaedia. And they don't have to be cited. Personally, I have a userbox that tells you my age. It has nothing to do with the encyclopaedia and you won't find my date of birth in any reliable sources.

  I think that characterising this userbox as "aggressive" is unhelpful hyperbole. It's not aggressive or combative. It's an opinion statement phrased as a question. In that context, I think the various remarks above about combative assertions not belonging on Wikipedia are rich with unintended irony.

  All in all I'm of the view that we need to overturn this. Let it cool down for the full seven days of the DRV, then send it to MFD, ideally with a note in the header reminding the MFD participants that this should be a respectful and collegial discussion. Because this is a collaborative encyclopaedia and if someone goes away thinking they haven't had a fair hearing, then our processes have failed us.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was a very thoughtful and thought-provoking comment - thanks for that. Since you mention Sue Gardner's comments on retention, I'll take the opportunity to go a bit meta. I think that one of the biggest turn-offs for new (and existing) users is the ever-increasing bureaucratization of Wikipedia. It's not a lack of process that drives people away - it's an excess. The fact that even obviously correct actions can be (and usually are) dragged out through innumerable bureaucratic processes burns people out. But that's just my take. Anyhow, thanks for your comments. MastCell ^Talk 01:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I can see that this is "obviously correct" to you. But equally, I can also see that it's not "obviously correct" to NYyankees51—and I can see why it isn't obviously correct to him, too. This goes back to what I was saying about FairProcess. Contributors don't get much recognition or reward for their work on Wikipedia, but if they're good faith contributors, then in a dispute, they do get the right to a fair hearing before their peers. Unfortunately, if you're going to have a fair hearing then you have to have a process, so a certain amount of bureaucracy is part of the price we pay. I do understand the urge to get to the right result quickly, but I also think that trying to drive a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion between good faith editors is usually a mistake that does more harm than good.—S Marshall T/C 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Endorse deletion per NOTSOAPBOX which is very clear: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (emph added). Endorse speediness per NOTBUREAUCRACY. RexxS's analysis is spot-on. NYyankees51's description of the box as a "simple scientific fact"[11] is disingenuous and as I see it, continuing to press the matter amounts to tendentious editing that should lead to sanctions if the pattern repeats. I also have concerns with NYyankees51's overall editing history as described by Gold Hat. While the problems I've looked at probably aren't severe enough to warrant a more general editing restriction yet, I'd urge NYyankees51 to branch out into less contentious topics for a while. As for the neutrality of the userbox itself, remember that the ANI thread started with a report of an edit by Dragonfly67[12] that (while ill-advised for other reasons) pointed out the propagandistic nature of the box's contents. And with due respect to Sue Gardner, this is the kind of "social editing" that we don't want to attract more of. Users who want Myspace know where it is. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics (2nd nomination). Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The removal of CSD T1 yet again seems ill-considered. We'd probably still be having this debate even if it was still on the list, but at least we might be spared much of the angst. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – Userboxes are trivial. I don't see how an userbox could seriously harm Wikipedia or its users. Wikipedia user are entitled to holding views, although they should realize that Wikipedia isn't a blog or a hosting site. If DragonflySixtyseven really believed that this userbox was a big enough deal to warrant deletion, then he should've sought a second opinion at a MfD. NYyankees51, on the other hand, made the mistake of escalating the conflict. The conflict could've been resolved through an one-on-one discussion with DragonflySixtyseven. As seen in the userbox's history, DragonflySixtyseven didn't revert NYyankees51's restoration of the userbox. NYyankees51 even said that "[DragonflySixtyseven] admitted his actions were over the line." The conflict should've been resolved there, but NYyankees decided to involve more users in what I suspect to be a bid to impeach or punish DragonflySixtyseven via the AN/I. No one goes to the AN/I just to complain; they also expect action, and the only action NYyankees could've expected was DragonflySixtyseven being punished. This, of course, backfired and lead to the deletion of userbox. If NYyankees had kept the conflict small and between two individuals, we wouldn't be here. I'm just saying this so that NYyankees could pinpoint where he went wrong and learn the value of subsidiary. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Serious harm" is not the only reason why something might be deleted - it's potentially offensive, polarizing, contrary to policy, and not helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia (although it certainly builds drama). Your comment about Wikipedia not being a blog or a hosting site is dead on. As to the rest of your commentary, it's likely better suited to NY's talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  People have to accept that they're going to be offended by another person's views and move on, especially on the Internet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, Michaeldsuarez. I shouldn't have escalated it. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's okay. My comment was a little over the top. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative overturn Is it a proven, generally accepted fact that an unborn baby's heart begins to beat just 21 days after conception? If not, then the problem I see is not with the opinion of the userbox itself (everyone is entitled to non-attacking opinions; I don't see anything wrong with an unobtrusive statement of beliefs because that discloses any potential COIs/NPOV issues) but how the message is conveyed. I more strongly support a reword to something like, "This user believes his/her heart began beating 21 days after he/she was conceived". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but send to MfD, largely per S Marshall, Hobit, etc. on process grounds. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to MfD. This DRV is turning into MfD anyway, so that's really the place for it. Reyk _YO! 09:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List at MfD. Bad IAR (no over-riding need, and then disputed). The deletion violates the clear text at teh top of WP:CSD. Neutral on the merits of the deletion. Unimpressed that the picture (70 days) didn't match the caption (21 days). Tis is misleading, tending deceitful. This userbox is almost an essay, and probably would work better as an essay. As an essay, it would be deleted as unrelated to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Not much else to say. WP:UP#POLEMIC is pretty clear. The use of the 70 day embryo picture when talking about its heart beating at 21 days shows well enough its not meant to categorize but be a platform for WP:SOAPBOXing. -- ۩ Mask 12:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn contingent on modification I don't think this userbox is appropriate, but just zapping it out of existence goes too far. NYY has already made a good faith attempt to move in this direction by removing "before your mother even knew she was pregnant" because of the outlandishness of that claim. I'd encourage NYY to go even further and make the box about him/herself rather than a blanket statement, much like Fetchcomms suggests above. I'd also be interested to know where that photo comes from? It looks rather... "enhanced" to me. Arbor8 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to MfD I don't view this userbox as an appropriate use of userspace, as it crosses the line between identifying the user as a supporter of a particular viewpoint and actively advocating that viewpoint. Having said that the deletion was out of line. We have a deletion policy, and administrators are expected to stick to it apart from exceptional circumstances. The userbox did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria and a brief ANI discussion does not establish consensus for deleting things in userspace (the proper place for that is MFD). Whether the page met the definition of "userbox" is irrelevant. What matters is that the page didn't qualify for summary deletion. Hut 8.5 14:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - A userpage should be something about you, sure, but "about you" in the context of "you" as a Wikipedia editor. Not a soapbox from which to express personal points-of-view on contentious social issues. It adds nothing of value to the Wikipedia to know that NYyankees51 is in the anti-abortion faction, and serves only to be divisive. The project is improved by its removal. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I say this even though I find S Marshall's analysis to be very thoughtful and worthy of serious consideration. And I think that the way we got here, by way of an AN/I report of some rather silly behavior, to be far from ideal. But this userbox was entirely out of scope, deliberatively provocative to the point of being, knowingly, disruptive. It seems to me to be unreasonable to claim that the box might have been, or have the potential to easily become, an appropriate one, and likewise unreasonable to claim that the matter is sufficiently subjective to require going back to a deletion discussion. It is absolutely not an overextension of IAR to invoke IAR when doing so prevents disruption of the project, and that is what this deletion did. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. NYyankees51, while I think the deletion was a bit hasty, I also think you ought to go back and look at [13] and [14]. If you had kept with your stated intent and not recreated the controversial userboxes that you had removed, the issue under discussion here in this deletion review would not exist. I'm not sure why you keep surrounding yourself with controversy -- you've already been blocked twice in the 2 months since accepting HJ Mitchell's deal to lift your indefinite ban for socking. As he said, he stuck his neck out when he unblocked you. Don't repay the good will he showed you with behavior that may have people wondering if unblocking you was a mistake. Mojoworker (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Mojoworker, I do appreciate your concern (I mean that). I do not surround myself with controversy intentionally and I make all my contributions in good faith. I admit that because I defend them so vociferously it may be hard to see my intent. I would not have created the userbox if I knew it would cause these problems. I just took issue with the fact that it was speedily deleted even though I had already changed it to accommodate the concerns of others (see here). And I have heeded your concerns, see here and my most recent editing, which has not been quite so aggressive in nature. In any case, this page is a discussion about the userbox, not my editing. I'd be happy to continue the conversation on my talk page. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused on the history that Mojoworker mentions. Is this a recreation of a deleted userbox? If so, speedily dispatch it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I said I would remove all the userboxes I was displaying from my user page, but I put them back soon after. The userbox in question was not a recreation. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn While I think a speedy was probably wrong in terms of procedure, the box is likely to be deleted at MfD. So I could advocate sending it to MfD with the knowledge that a deletion discussion would have a foregone conclusion. Protonk (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak WP:BURO keep deleted. This is essentially a speedy deletion under the old CSD criterion T1 which was removed following a well attended discussion.[15] If consensus is that it is proper, then re-adding T1 or a similar criterion to CSD is what is needed not IAR deletions. On the other hand, this userbox does not have an encyclopedic purpose and would probably be deleted at MfD. Usually, I'd say to send it for a discussion, but in this particular case the comments above have convinced me that there is no realistic chance of anything but a delete outcome. In such a case, prosess for its own sake is neither necessary nor helpful. That is speedy deletion rather than sending to MfD may have been the wrong call initially but now that it had been done sending to MfD for another seven days is not a worthwhile use of resources in the face of a reasonably clear consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) List at MfD. There is consensus here that the ultimate fate for this userbox is deletion. I concur with this view for the many reasons already given, especially that this userbox is not a statement about a user. However, S Marshall is correct that the deletion didn't follow procedure. Therefore, the deletion should be overturned and the matter sent to MfD. However, I would urge NYyankees51 to see the light here and agree to immediate deletion to save us the trouble. There has been more discussion on this page than most MfDs, so the "day in court" has been achieved, albeit in the wrong forum. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this lengthy debate here functionally equivalent to an MFD? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, but the policy doesn't allow for that. I would support changing the policy, but we have to go by what we have today. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then this should be closed, an MFD should be opened, and all these comments should be moved to it. And by the way, it IS advocacy, despite the poster's claim that it isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, that's what "List at MfD" means as spelled out in the instructions for this process. The direct transfer of comments might be complicated because so many are inter-twined with the out of process initial deletion. We should have a link back here for sure, as well as a forward link so that those who have this page watch listed can easily refactor their comment onto the MfD page. However, it would be most considerate for NYyankees51 to save us the trouble per WP:SNOW. I agree that it's blatant advocacy per WP:DUCK. I have other concerns about it being highly disruptive for a number of users, myself included, but I'd rather not get into that when there are so many clear cut reasons for deletion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Linking back here is probably better, yes. Ironically, if he were to change it from the current in-your-face approach to something like "I support the pro-life agenda", then it would more likely be acceptable, as it would square with many of the other "This user is..." types of boxes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is supposed to be a review of the deletion process, not a review of the content itself. It has turned into a content review. I hope this will be transferred to MfD so I can defend the merits of the box and be given the opportunity to change it. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's nothing stopping you from changing it right now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • That would interfere with the deletion process review. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, it wouldn't. Change it to something acceptable, and the whole megillah goes away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That would be acceptable. Changing to something like "this user is pro-life because an embryo has a beating heart at 15-days" would probably moot this whole discussion, though I speak only for myself. Hobit (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not for me. Anything with "because..." is a soapbox. Plus, I have my doubts that is the real reason that the user is pro-life. The beating heart thing is trying to sway others to their point of view and we really don't want to go there. Just say that you're pro-life and be done with it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • There are many reasons I'm pro-life, and this is one of them. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Are you inclined to have a userbox for each reason? Or is it sufficient to say, "This user supports the Pro-Life agenda" or whatever? That would square with acceptable userboxes such as "This user is a Communist", "This user is an Atheist", "This user is a Polyanna", or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Not a soapbox should apply. Eusebeus (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This userbox tells me nothing about this user. It's just a statement with a misleading picture. If the user wants to state on his user page that he or she is prolife, fine. Say it but say it clearly. The deletion may have been out of process but we have WP:IAR for a reason. I doubt this would be kept after an MfD discussion. Process for the sake of process is stupid. AniMate 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The GNAA article appears to have been given short shrift in its last full-length DRV; most commentors weighed in with statements about whether or not they liked the GNAA, rather than their opinions on the article's improved sourcing. Similarly, the last two DRV closes have mostly been based on the disruption of LiteralKa starting multiple DRVs and/or the commentors' dislike of the issue.

Nevertheless, the article in its current draft form does show potential beyond what mere "GNAA is annoying" can counteract, and in an effort to put this issue to rest (at least for the near future) to everyone's satisfaction, I have spoken to LiteralKa (talk · contribs). S/he has agreed that the results of this DRV will be binding upon him/her for six months from its close. There is no quid-pro-quo expectation here; however, I very strongly urge commentors this time around to focus their arguments on whether the article meets our criteria for inclusion rather than whether the GNAA may or may not have worn out its welcome here. My hope is that this DRV discussion can be based on the merits of the article, especially its sourcing (in the context of internet phenomena, I would argue that places like Boing Boing and Gizmodo are certainly reliable) and notability, rather than on whether the GNAA is disliked by the WP community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from the closer of the last DRV. I don't have an opinion on this nomination, but to the admin who closes this, make sure your privacy is pretty tight; I had a couple IPs make a serious attempt at finding my personal information, including my real name and address. It has since been oversighted, but I don't want to see that happen to anyone else. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from a participant to the last DRV: I voiced my opinion in favour of restoring the article, and just yesterday a friend of mine found his long lost cat who had been missing for weeks. I'd certainly want to see that happen to others. Guaranteed true story. Sam Hocevar (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit disrespectful to downplay concerns for one's personal privacy. Believe it or not, there are people out there who do that kind of crap. Research this guy, for instance. Killiondude (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: I admittedly don't know how this all works but having been sort of following this drama on irc as well I see no reason at all for this article not to exist. It's got far more factual information backed up by reliable sources than the typical article about pokemon or whatever, and wikipedia definitely has no shortage of that sort of content. 184.247.156.97 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It's time to be sensible about this. By now, even the campaign to keep it out of Wikipedia is an element of notability -- see ref. 16 in the article. WP:OSTRICH, an essay that needs more careful attention. Can be otherwise stated as a combination of NOT CENSORED, and the advisability of not acting like a bunch of priggish fools. (this is not a personal attack with respect to anything that might be said here; it is an attack on a certain attitude.) DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with a bit of history. It is not because "GNAA is disliked by the WP community" that we have historically held them to a higher standard. That is, it is not their general trollishness that is the chief cause of concern, but their very long-term history of specifically trolling our criteria of inclusion, which, as DGG concedes just above and is stated in the lead paragraph of the draft article, is one of the principal reasons for their notability. I have never bought this and I never will; no matter how notable WP itself may have become by now, publicly contesting our notability standards cannot itself confer notability. Chick Bowen 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, If they protest WP:N publically enough to be notable, then actually they would. I'm not sure that's the case, but we do accept other memes and internet phenomenon for inclusion on the basis of widespread *internet* notability even if there haven't been non-net third-party sources. like them or not, some of these groups are big enough that they are possible of conferring notability if they talk about them as a third party. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is, by far, not "one of the principal reasons for their notability", the two Apple trolls, among other things, are. The only mention of Wikipedia is a single sentence. LiteralKa (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAllow Recreation Is there a concise list of references establishing WP:ORG for this group as distinct from the notability of Goatse Security? I looked at a lot of the references, but most were establishing the notability of specific actions attributed to the group, but did not really establish the notability of the group itself. A separate list of any that do would be helpful. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per WP:NGO:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

See the Apple trolls for one such example.

Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

See ref #s 7, 8, 16, 17, 20, and 26 (this is excluding GNAA's "activities")

LiteralKa (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be enough there to justify notability, so I'll go with overturn, specifically on the basis of refs #16, #17 and #20. I'm not really sure the others really establish the notability for a variety of reasons, but those 3 are enough. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This seems to pass both parts of WP:NGO. In addition there seems to be enough sources to pass the WP:GNG. We should not hold this article to a stricter unwritten slandered because they disrupt wikipedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn 1) GNAA no longer meets any of the criteria for deletion, or even is close to meeting them. 2) GNAA easily passes WP:GNG and clearly demonstrates notability. 3) When compared with the revision that was deleted five years ago, the working draft is almost completely unrecognizable. All of the old article's problems have been addressed. LiteralKa (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn In previous DrVs, admins claimed that there was "consensus" that the article should remain deleted. While this may be true, there was no consensus as to *WHY* it should remain deleted. As active as the DrVs were, there were many users and just as many reasons why they didn't want the article included in Wikipedia. Were there a solid, valid reason, most of the users would have agreed upon it. The only consensus in the DrVs has been that numerous users are grasping at straws for reasons rather than admitting WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The GNAA draft is far more sound than many articles that have survived multiple VfDs for the same "reasons" (such as Rob Levin). We must hold all articles to the same standard, regardless of our personal opinions. Personally, I think the appropriate action would be to recreate the GNAA article, and add a "Goatse Security" section which would be merged in. nprice (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other topic of note, if the ORIGINAL article really did have issues, it wouldn't've taken 20 VfDs to delete, and it's pretty much universally accepted that the new draft is much better. nprice (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse by applying WP:DENY to real life. GNAA exists for the "purpose" of shock value: whether someone wants to change the electronic bits within our database or manipulate life and coverage, vandalism is vandalism, and should be rewarded appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you just compare a well-sourced article to vandalism? I'm hurt. I have dedicated a significant amount of time to the article in question, and if all it amounts to is vandalism, it's a waste. LiteralKa (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breaching AT&T's security is far beyond simply vandalizing or manipulating Wikipedia. The GNAA doesn't require an article in order to be notable. A Wikipedia article doesn't create notability for the subject. Denying the GNAA an article isn't going to make them lose notability and fade away. The article has been deleted for over four years, but that hasn't diminished the GNAA's reputation. Keeping the article deleted per WP:DENY only creates a false sense of security and perhaps a false sense of victory as well. How will a Wikipedia article create "shock value" anyway? Are concern that someone would search "gay niggers" on Google and find an encyclopedia article instead the porn and penises one might expect? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several points to bring up, the first being that it's more than just a bit of a stretch to apply WP:DENY to real life. I find it rather disturbing that an admin would even try to make that claim. Second, even under your logic, WP:DENY doesn't apply. WP:DENY applies to vandals, not trolls. (note the number of times the word 'troll' is mentioned, etc.) LiteralKa (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Four DRVs in a month is just plain ridiculous. T. Canens (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying Speedy close Overturn? Because that seems to be what the consensus is (to the extent that it is clear yet). I think this is a serious DRV and shouldn't be discounted simply because past ones did not make as strong a case. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close this DRV and salt all Gay Nigger Association of America XfDs for three months from the close of this DRV per WP:DENY - The draft GNAA article reads, "Its aim is to sow disruption on the Internet. Lih has noted on the groups activities within Wikipedia, claiming that by adhering to every rule, they can use the system against itself." Four DRVs in a month. How is that withing the rules and if it is (seems to be since the admins are allowing it), the rules need to be changed. What about the rules Wikipedia is not a battleground - Wikipedia is not a place to carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice or hatred - and Wikipedia is not an anarchy - Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. Someone needs to close this DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you cite a policy, guideline, essay, etc. as to why you think GNAA does not qualify for an article? LiteralKa (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be inconsistent with WP:DENY. I get it. DRV allows requests to consider new information. The GNAA draft has (or maybe it hasn't - who knows! Lets discuss.) received new information four times in the last month and now we are on the fourth DRV in a month. My guess is that GNAA is going to keep posting DRVs to keep promoting its offensive name in Wikipedia through XfDs (and laughing all the way to the Internet disruption bank) without concerned about meeting article policy. The fact this DRV was not closed before I got here and has long continued after my post -- even though GNAA is up to 17 or 20 XfDs (or more) -- shows that Wikipedia is not ready to handle this and DRV's lack of clear rules on rapid, successive DRV nominations can be used against itself to sow disruption on Wikipedia. Since the degree to which GNAA has been noticed by independent sources is less than the amount of disruption the topic continues to cause in Wikipedia, speedy close this DRV and salt all Gay Nigger Association of America XfDs for three months from the close of this DRV per WP:DENY. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you had actually read the nomination, you would have seen that the DRV renomination issue has been addressed. (And there's only been about 10 real AfDs and DRVs combined, sans trolls and speedy close/keep and snowballs.) LiteralKa (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The above DRV nomination inadaquately addressed the rapid DRV renominations and failed to address cumulative disruption of Wikipedia over this topic. Allowing an article for this topic will increase the amount of disruption this topic will cause in Wikipedia and no one at this DRV has adaquately rebutted that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't follow your reasoning here. If the AFD's and DRV's about the GNAA are disrupting Wikipedia, wouldn't giving them an article actually stop the disruption? Besides, we have articles on some GNAA related topics, such as Goatse Security and weev–I don't think that the project has really been disrupted by their presence so I don't see why this article would be any different. Of all the problems that are facing Wikipedia, having an article with a possibly offensive title is a pretty minor issue, IMHO. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Encyclopedia Dramatica article isn't causing disruption. Here's a few things to keep in mind about "offensive titles": Gay niggers is a redirect that'll appear on the auto-complete drop-down list, Patriotic Nigras has an article, and people are more likely to be offended by the nude photos on several articles or File:Virgin_Killer.jpg. WP:NOTCENSORED. It's not Wikipedia's duty to prevent people from being offended by what they see or find. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qrsdogg: I think you are missing the point, GNAA is here to create disruption (as per the draft article).  Since the goal is disruption, having an article has nothing to do with this discussion.  If you look at why we had so many AfDs, someone by the name of GNAA was demanding that the article be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you, sir, are missing the point. Having an article is this discussion. The GNAA's intentions play no role in this DRV, whether or not the draft meets the criteria for deletion does. LiteralKa (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 comments by one participant is evidence of WP:THELASTWORD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And 18 AfDs isn't? How dare you accuse me of something like that. The vast majority of my edits to this page have been in response to the "source review". Please do your homework before accusing me of that ever again. LiteralKa (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that they are here just to create disruption. I can't vouch for everything they've ever done on-wiki (I've only been here for a year or so) but from what I've seen they're simply trying to get us to apply our existing notability policies to their group. Sure there have been a lot of discussions about their article, but only a few of them were actually started by members of the group, IIRC. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources review of User:Murdox/GNAA - what makes the following reliable?
  • http://g1.globo.com/tecnologia/noticia/2010/06/entenda-como-foi-falha-que-expos-e-mails-de-114-mil-usuarios-do-ipad.html
    • Organizações Globo – "the largest media conglomerate of Latin America and the one of the world's largest", easily satisfies WP:RS. LiteralKa (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.boingboing.net/2007/03/08/second_lifes_patriot.html
    • One of the more reliable/notable blog sites out there. LiteralKa (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still a blog site. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and try to satisfy the requirements laid out there. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Post was written by Xeni Jardin, a contributor to many other media corporations on tech issues. LiteralKa (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really don't see that she is "a member of the press with a reputation for reliability." She's also just quoting random blog comments, which aren't necessarily accurate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jodi Dean's presentation -- at the least definitely needs something to indicate a user is about to download something, and certainly needs to assert why it is reliable
    • Comment since when do we need to warn users that they are about to download a link to a PDF? LiteralKa (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the whole point of the |format= parameter in citation templates. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I believe that Jodi Dean has the necessary credentials ([16], [17]) to be considered reliable. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, do we need this ref? Doesn't ref 8, a book written by Dean and from a reliable publisher, cover the same information? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. This reference is redundant, and a better reference is available. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://twit.tv/44
    • TWiT.tv, a very reliable "tech news" network. LiteralKa (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://gizmodo.com/#!107940/macindell-part-quatre-the-ruby-goldmine
    • Owned by Gawker Media, one of the more well-known and reliable "tech news" networks. LiteralKa (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's still a blog that allows anyone to post. I'm not inclined to think this is reliable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This Week in Tech"
    • Comment – I struck this out since (unless I'm mistaken) it's the same reference as the http://twit.tv/44 bullet listed above (This Week in Tech's URL address is twit.tv). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://lastmeasure.com/ has virtually nothing on it, needs to be removed
    • I feel that it's appropriate in the context that it's used in. LiteralKa (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says virtually nothing. The entire content is "Last Measure is the GNAA's world-renowned shock site. You are reading the main distribution page. The GNAA is a sponsor of the Shock Site and Gay Nigger Association of America entries on Wikipedia" (the latter part scares me a bit...) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's scaring you because you want it to. It's appropriately used to back up claims that the article makes. LiteralKa (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's not. It does not support the claim of "responsible for ... software products", and as a primary source, it should not be used to support a claim of being known for "shock sites". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see how you think it doesn't support the "responsible for ... software products" claim. It's right on the page. (Also, from WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.") LiteralKa (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eHYOyInYjUEJ:www.msa.monash.edu.au/documents/lotswife/LotsWifeEditionSix2010.pdf+filetype:pdf+GNAA+%2Bgay&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a -- deadlink, needs to be fixed or removed
    • Comment – WP:LINKROT#Keeping_dead_links LiteralKa (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I highly disagree with WP:Linkrot -- the information is no longer verifiable because it's no longer accessible. There's a reason why we ask people to fix or remove dead links in FAs. :-) Can you find an archived copy somewhere? I need to raise a query on Linkrot's talk page. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's also a huge difference between a DRV and an FAC. LiteralKa (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • When we get to the the 30s, this isn't a normal DRV anymore. Can you please find an archived copy so I can verify its reliability? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is the 11th DRV, and it's more like 8 if you don't count the speedy closes. I'm working on finding an archived copy, my Internet's been spotty lately. LiteralKa (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're forgetting the AfD's! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would imagine that the number of AfDs it survived would argue the other way. LiteralKa (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001725.html
    • Sepia Mutiny – "as of May 2007 had amassed over five million readers since inception". LiteralKa (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't tell me it is reliable. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for ways to prove a site is reliable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See: the author's credentials. LiteralKa (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't have a LinkedIn profile, and I don't intend to get one. :) Can you list them? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.asylum.com/2010/01/29/westboro-baptist-church-protests-gets-protested-outside-twitter/
    • Asylum seems to be owned by AOL. LiteralKa (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • AOL does not have a reputation as a notable media company, in my view. What else makes this reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ed17 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 March 2011
        • I disagree, AOL has been making their way into the "news world" for a while now; take the recent purchase of the Huffington Post, for example. LiteralKa (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well yes, if this was from the Huffington, it would have a better chance of being reliable. Being published online by AOL is not enough in itself to confer reliability. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches: "If a site is backed by a large media company or is a media or official organization, it may be reliable, depending on the text being cited." LiteralKa (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • AOL is a large company not dedicated to its news output. Having the company run by AOL is not enough to confer reliability. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • AOL is a large company which is increasingly moving towards focusing on its news output. They have been setting up news sites and buying up others for the past several years now, Asylum is but one of these. LiteralKa (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Being published by a company run by AOL is not enough to confer automatic reliability. Is there anything else that would make this pass WP:RS and WP:SPS? If not, then it isn't reliable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I removed the reference, as it really wasn't all that important. LiteralKa (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://techworld.nl/technologie/16665/bug-in-firefox-gebruikt-tegen-irc-netwerk.html&ei=NxN-TPq_DY2X4gaW-cH_BQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://techworld.nl/technologie/16665/bug-in-firefox-gebruikt-tegen-irc-netwerk.html%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Ddgj%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official -- link doesn't work, shouldn't be linking to an automatic translation anyway
    • Comment – Should link to http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/84529/bug-in-firefox-gebruikt-tegen-irc-netwerk.html instead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Instead of complaining about improper links, fix them. LiteralKa (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There isn't any way for The_ed17 to have known without some effort that the URL address for the source changed from http://techworld.nl/technologie/16665/bug-in-firefox-gebruikt-tegen-irc-netwerk.html to http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/84529/bug-in-firefox-gebruikt-tegen-irc-netwerk.html. I only took the extra effort to search for the new URL address because I'm interested in the subject. The_ed17 isn't obligated to fix anything. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but he's obviously interested enough to do a "sources review". (Also, it just pisses me off when people complain and do nothing to fix the problem.) LiteralKa (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, the burden isn't on me to find you new sources. This one looks good as it is backed by a major media company with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Struck. LiteralKa (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paula Zahn Now". Paula Zahn Now. CNN. CNN. February 3, 2007. -- this doesn't seem to be accessible, and isn't formatted right (the show name twice + TV station twice?)
    • Comment – If it isn't formatted right, why don't you do something about it? LiteralKa (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I'm assuming it was referring to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnqWs8pAsRk. IIRC, the GNAA were responsible for jewsdidwtc.com. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still have qualms over this; it's used in the article as an example of GNAA's trolling, but there's nothing here to indicate there is an overall pattern. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not used to indicate a "pattern", it's used as an example of a notable troll. LiteralKa (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good, then why was this trolling notable? Was it even notable? I don't see a reference commenting on the trolling, I just have this video of the trolling itself. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here's a KQED article by Deepthi Welaratna: http://www.kqed.org/arts/multimedia/article.jsp?essid=15142. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is this event notable enough to be included in the article? So CNN accidentally used a site created by the GNAA in a random news broadcast in 2007... not that important or special. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would imagine that trolling a major news network is quite notable for the purposes of inclusion in the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Trolling? Hardly. They made a joke site that was accidentally featured in a minor news segment four years ago. If this is what they are "notable" for, are you certain we need an article on them? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You're acting like that's the only section there. It was a troll, it was enough to convince CNN that it was a legitimate anti-semitic conspiracy site. LiteralKa (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't see how it was trolling, but that isn't my main point. If this is one of the most important things they did, I'm not so sure this is a notable topic. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.macrumors.com/2004/06/26/mac-os-x-10-4-tiger-screenshots/
    • Comment – The author of the post is Dr. Arnold Kim of Mac Rumors. Please take note of the follow-up post as well. The screenshots discussed can be found here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is Mr. Kim an authority on Macs, though? Is he a noted expert in the field? Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • [18] LiteralKa (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoops, I found that NYT article which I now realize is linked above. Having the site profiled in that paper is enough for me. Still, this does not mention the GNAA – use with caution. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://macdailynews.com/2005/06/11/report_apple_mac_os_x_1041_for_intel_hits_piracy_sites/
    • This site is referenced in many places all over the wiki. LiteralKa (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches – this is not a valid argument. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/12/os-x-for-x86-already-in-the-wild/
    • Comment – The author of the post is Ryan Block of Engadget. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attack of the Show!". Attack of the Show!. G4. G4. June 2005. <-- doesn't seem to be important enough for inclusion, seems more like source padding. Same with the Wired ref.
    • I was under the impression that a popular tech TV show is reliable. LiteralKa (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, this was more a comment on what it is referencing. It was briefly mentioned on a TV show...period. That whole paragraph seems to be a relatively minor incident that made a couple waves only due to the gravity of the claims. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's used to further detail one of the more notable trolls, I think that's acceptable. LiteralKa (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I don't. Including such a minor incident is source padding to increase the number of sources to increase the chance this passes DRV. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.tuaw.com/2005/08/12/jumping-on-the-bandwagon-os-x-on-x86-omg/
    • Owned by AOL. LiteralKa (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • AOL does not have a reputation as a notable media company, in my view. What else makes this reliable? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my comment on the asylum ref. LiteralKa (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And see my reply to the above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.scribd.com/doc/48143653/Spitler-Daniel-et-al-Complaint -- primary source to boot
    • WP:PRIMARY states that "unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". LiteralKa (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not even close to what I meant. It's a primary source in that it can't lend notability to the article's subject. This reference is used twice, once to bolster a statement with two other sources, and another to 'prove' who the GNAA president is. I'm inclined to view this as source padding too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • GNAA President is also "proved" by ref 4. LiteralKa (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is a primary source. Aren't there any independent, reliable, third party sources that discusses weev's involvement in the GNAA? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1276804800000&chddm=4953&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:AAPL&ntsp=0 -- you can't attribute the stock drop, which is only illustrated here, to the GNAA without a completely different reference. This needs to be removed.
    • I removed it, struck. LiteralKa (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a few problems I can see regarding reliable sourcing, particularly with satisfying WP:SPS. Please prove to me and the rest of us why these are reliable and why they contain significant-enough mentions of the GNAA to warrant inclusion here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a lot of those, you just say that they aren't reliable. How is a CNN news report not reliable, etc. LiteralKa (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, The ed, this is exactly the sort of analysis I was hoping would be done regarding the article's prospects. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see many slam-dunk CNN reports there... you're welcome, Fluff. I haven't done much analyzing though – someone needs to go through and see how many are used to pad the article's source count, like the Google Finance link. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are certainly problems with source padding. The whole CNN incident is minor and should not be included. Saying something made the front page of a niche news site and was "mentioned" on a TV show isn't very important either. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]