Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 17

Analytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Rename and edit I hope will overcome problem. Also many other pages link to it and need it for information

Article was deleted because it's name was "Analaytic/Anglophone and Continental Philosophy". Restoring the article with a new name "Analytic and Continental Philosophy" is proposed. Any content disputes can then be handled by normal editing. Lucas 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The AfD was closed properly on an apparent consensus to delete (not just to rename), and many other concerns aside from the title were presented: for instance, that the article was unsalvageable original research, that it had NPOV problems, and that its hastily produced "references" didn't actually appear, when checked, to support the claims they were attached to. Since then, User:Lucaas has re-created the article by cut-and-paste at least once. I'd suggest finding a non-Wikipedia outlet for this non-encyclopedic material. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not an expert in philosophy. But perhaps my opinion still counts: keep deleted, at least in this form. An article about the differences between these two schools may be warranted, but as I already said several times in different places: I'd recommend starting a new article from the scratch, by somebody who wasn't involved with the original one. - Mike Rosoft 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - POV/WP:NOR per the AfD. The community's concensus was correct in the matter - the article is beyond any hope of salvaging decent, encyclopedic content. Henceforth, my decision is to endorse the deletion, as Rbellin and Michael. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn' The claims of POV are editable, there are 13 major references and 40 editors work involved. I quote here from a well known US philosopher, Babich:

there is a difference between analytic and continental approaches to philosophy not only because it is obvious and not only because as a professor of philosophy I live on the terms of a profession dominated by this noisome distinction but because the claim that there is no such distinctive divide is politically manipulative.

Seems that wiki is even more conservative than mainstream media and printing where alot more has been said on this issue; it cannot handle interesting or controversial issues if it just deletes by majority vote, since after 5 days of delete review 4 were for keepoing it, 7 against (which was coordinated), that is not even a 2/3 majority but it was deleted still. The act of suppression I take as a serious infringment. Editors have been able to work on this article and remove any particular point they see fit. There is no reason to delete it there have been many reasons to revise it.

Also the article has received references from outside wikipedia, also one person on the talk page said it was the most informative they've read in philosophy wiki (which mostly just trots out old saws) It is referenced from many wikie pages, Analytic, Continetal, Philosophy, etc. --Lucas 13:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn My vote for deletion was conditional, only to delete the name, not the content. Content can always be fixed. { Ben S. Nelson } _Lucidish 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against rewritten recreation as renamed article. Concerns about sourcing, original research and title in the afd appear to be valid. Closure seems ok. Totally rewrite and properly source the article in article space to deal with problems and the subject can be re-introduced under a new title. And no mysterious editorial comment pictures, please Bwithh 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• how can I discuss what I cannot see?DGG 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See the page User:Lucaas, which is another copy of the same content, minus categorization, and probably should be deleted under WP:CSD#G4 and then have only the 2006 versions restored. GRBerry 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh my goodness, what a mess. The AFD is properly linked above. We've had WP:CSD#G4 deletions at Analytic and Continental Philosophy and twice at Schism between Analytic and Continental philosophy. The second G4 deletion at the second title was of a stub only, but suffers from the same WP:OR and broad brush problems that the AFD found in the deleted article. So, if the AFD closure is endorsed, also endorse the G4 deletions, if it is overturned they are not relevant. Also, as noted in my response to DGG, we need to delete the 2007 versions of the page User:Lucaas.

Now let's move on to the main issue; the AFD close. I'm going to say that it was within the reasonable limits of administrator discretion, and therefore endorse closure, because I'm accepting the decision that we are better off leaving recreation of material on this topic to other editors or another time. GRBerry 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Tenors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Was speedy deleted as "not notable"; But, the Irish Tenors are definitely notable. Others were working on this article and had placed the {{hangon}} tag, so I think the deletion was out of process too. This article was on my watchlist, to be created at some point. The Irish Tenors meet WP:BAND, at the very least "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network." Their concerts have been broadcast numerous time on PBS. [1] They also have other media coverage: [2] [3] [4] and further google search turns up more. And, they play at major venues such as Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts in the Washington, D.C. area [5] and Liverpool Summer Pops in the U.K. [6]. I don't like to wheel war, but think this is a clear case. --Aude (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete notable, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Flyingtoaster1337 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history and Speedy close, deleting admin already recreated article with all text that hadn't been commented out as a potential copyvio. GRBerry 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore history and Speedy close as above. Very notable, should have an article, pass WP:MUSIC with flying colours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Angry Nintendo Nerd|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Give us achange to prove that the actual site is notable, don't delete the friggin' talk page! 80.222.183.225 15:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion review, you've got one right here. Any non-trivial coverage by reliable sources? Endorse deletion of orphaned talk page per CSD General-8. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per above. Flyingtoaster1337 17:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. And since Centrx recently deleted the WP:SALT at Angry Nintendo nerd I have made that a protected redirect to the salted article. Guy (Help!) 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion there are very few cases when we should retain the talk page of a deleted article. At one time AfD results were copied there, but that hasn't been done for more than a year. In any case, if you have evidence that proves the site "is notable" (I assume you mean "passes WP:WEB"), then the place to present such evidence is here at DRV, not on the article's talk page. Given the article's considerable history of failed votes, you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind, I don't know what it is with you, but you seem to really take pride in destroying this article. Do you have some sort of personal vendetta? Or is the power just getting to your head? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.161.6 (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, darn, you caught me. It's all part of my master plan, you see. It was based on three steps: Step 1: Keep unreferenced web-meme articles without sources off Wikipedia. Step 2: ??????. Step 3: Take over the world! Granted, I'm not absolutely certain what step 2 is going to be just yet, but step 1 is going swimmingly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.161.6 (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion, no new information, not covered by one of the reasons for retaining a talk page for a deleted article. --Coredesat 04:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was featured on MTV. Way to contribute a useless and outright wrong, "I agree" post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.161.6 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to fans of the Angry (Nintendo/Video Game) Nerd, he appeared on MTV for a few seconds. WP:NOTE states non-trivial coverage, meaning something more than a quick cameo on a TV show or mere mention in a print source. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spazio, Tempo, Eternità (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Proxy listing for Marce1979 who re-created the page with:

please recover this page, i have started my translation before the deletion and when i have saved the page is already deleted.

Was deleted by Tijuana Brass as CSD A2. Flyingtoaster1337 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A2 but facilitate translation CSD A2 requires an article on another language version. That exists at the Italian Wikipedia. I don't read Italian to even know if claims notability; WP:BOOK would be the relevant proposal. Here is how far the translation got in the prose "Spazio, Tempo, Eternità it's a philosophyc essay of Redento Gianola (1943-2004), published in 2006. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Carmelo Vigna (teacher of philosophy at the University of Venice and". The infobox should be trivial, or we can restore to a user sub-page if you prefer. GRBerry 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've restored this one temporarily in order to send it to Marce's userspace. I don't expect anybody to have a problem with that, but I'll let another admin close this review so it won't be a unilateral move on my part. Tijuana Brass 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that's ok. If you come to an agreement with the nominator you can close the review. ~ trialsanderrors 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Links for Cumberland, Maryland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

After many discussions with User:Metros232 who deleted the links section on the main Cumberland, Maryland page against that pages' talk page, I moved the links to it's own page to find some middle ground with User:Metros232, instead it was nominated for speedy deletion. These links pertain to Cumberland and the Cumberland Metro Area, are informative and have further information on topics discussed in the main page, and have been discussed in the Cumberland, Maryland talk page and the consensus was to leave them be. I would like the page deleted to be undeleted, at best the links be allowed back to the main page...but undeletion will work for me. SVRTVDude 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was called "for Cumberland", not "of Cumberland", today is the 17th, not the 18th, and it was unambiguously a mere listing of external links, hence WP:CSD#A3 applies, as mentioned on my talk page. You can still find them in the edit history of the Cumberland article if you want to put them back in, but since about 80% of them were spam you might run into some opposition there. ~ trialsanderrors 08:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies on naming the page wrong here and putting it on the wrong date...am a day ahead I guess. I have tried to readd them just to have them taken down again, I have also tried to find middle ground with Metros232 to no avail, which is why I made a seperate page, which was nominated for speedy deletion by Metros232. I personally can find no middle ground with him, which is why I brought it to this board's attention to get other's opinions and possibly find some happy medium and get some of the links back. Rock on....SVRTVDude 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, Articles-3. DRV has no say over whether any of the links should be added back to the External links section of Cumberland, Maryland, but most of them would be totally inappropriate per the specifics of WP:EL and WP:NOT a directory generally. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and clarify: I didn't nominate it for speedy deletion, I nominated for deletion at an articles for deletion where someone else suggested it be speedy deleted and then it was closed as such. Metros232 13:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and original removal of the links. Wikipedia is not a directory and as such these links shouldn't be present, either in their own article or on the Cumberland page itself. --Pak21 13:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not only a POV fork, a POV fork formed entirely of external links - there are so many ways this is not appropriate that I don't know where to start. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD2)

deleted despite consensus TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The original deleltion proposal was made in bad faith by a banned Wikipedian user named Chad Bryant, who had a history of edit warring the entry and harrassing the editors who tried to keep the entry clear and concise.
2. There was No consensus to delete. This wasn't even close. I can understand if a consensus is 70-30 or so to then delete but this wasn't even that.
3. The closing admin ignored the linked sources establishing the notability of the entry.

TruthCrusader 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I count 11-8 in favour of deletion which is hardly a consensus to keep. Though it would be "no consensus" by the numbers admins look at arguments and policy/guidelines when assessing the debate. The closing admin concluded that there was only one independent source covering (rather than mentioning) the topic and that the article therefore failed WP:WEB. Given that a majority of user who commented agreed, I have no choice but to endorse the admin's closure. Eluchil404 09:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many entries that go through AFD and are kept as "no consensus" with an even larger margin of voting. The fact is the entry listed its sources (more than one) to verify notablility which the closing admin IGNORED. Coupled with the fact the whole process of this AFD was started as a bad faith nomination by a banned user who had been trying to ruin the entry for over a year. The entry even went through a period of clean up supervised by TWO admins who concluded the entry was properly notable, cited, and sourced. TruthCrusader 11:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comment While the review nominator here is correct that a recent AFD was started by a banned user, that is not this AFD; the one started by the banned nominator was speedily deleted. The admin who determined that that AFD had been started by a banned user also determined that it needed discussion not messed up by that banned user. So they nominated it again and semi-protected to keep the banned user from influencing it. (I did check the two comments noted in the discussion as having been deleted, and agree that they should be disregarded.) This AFD was one of the last dozen open from January 8. That made it clear to me before I began working the close that the consensus was not obvious, and is why I spent 45 minutes tracking down everything and deciding how to close.

The sources linked in the article were described in the article as mentioning the subject. WP:WEB calls for been the subject of, which is a different level of use. Several of the opinions in this AFD referred back to opinions made in that one, or even in the first AFD. I went through and looked up all those arguments, summarizing them on this AFD so I could see them all in one place at one time. (The only one not visible now, because the result was delete, was the diff for Arthur Fonzarelli's opinion; the source was a particular post in the newsgroup.) I also made some comments on the opinions while I was closing; so I don't need to reiterate them here. This was indeed a strength of the arguments close, not a numbers close. GRBerry 14:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse thoughtful closure. AfD majority <> consensus; consensus is found in policy and descriptive guidelines, what we see on AfDs is interpretations of the application of consensus to a specific case. The relevant consensus here is that non-trivial independent sources are a necessary condition for having an article; no such sources were provided. The sole source asserted to be independent, faqs.org, is neither multiple not necessarily independent - many (most) faqs are maintained by participants in the relevant groups. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion valid AfD. AfD, of course, is not just a votecount (althogh technically there was a majority to delete anyway). Simply put, the closing admin weighed the arguments correctly. There was only one real source (the FAQ at faqs.org), and as the closer notes that just isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia that "TruthCrusader" does not have the best of intentions in this case, and attempted to, shall we say, "meat puppet" the AfD vote with this post to rec.sport.pro-wrestling on January 10th. While Chad Bryant is a menace to the internet in general, "TruthCrusader" (who has his own sordid history on RSPW) is just as capable of "stirring the shit", so to speak. Alexander Cain 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems someone has usurped my moniker and attempted to use it in a negative manner on Wikipedia. Basically, what I'm saying is someone stole my identity and is using my name -- my REAL name, which may be verified through other independent sources by contacting me via e-mail -- and is attempting to attack TruthCrusasder on here, or at the very least make a little fun at my expense. This is unwarranted, unwanted and unnecessary and I can assure you that I will take steps on this site to have said user removed.

At any rate, I'd like to put my two cents in here by stating that I believe the article should have been kept, but edited to display and/or follow into the concerns brought by the administrator(s) who deleted the article. Granted, it's a Usenet newsgroup, but it's a fairly significant one and is not an obscure one by any means. There is numerical data to back up the number of posters, the group has been publically established on several previous occassions, and, well, just IMHO it's not as bad as it's made out to be. Granted, it has people like Chadbryant (who, btw, is probably sockpuppeting with Alexander Cain), but I can assure you that Mr. Bryant -- and even Mr. TruthCrusader, should one choose to look at it that way -- is/are by no means a viable representation of the group. I guess what I'm saying is yes, the place has kooks, but most houses have roaches, you just usually don't see them. The entry was indeed viewed by two administrators on prior occassions who came to the consensus between them that it was a legitimate article verified by outside sources and means and -- while annoying and controversial in its nature of producing the occassional nitwit -- met enough standards to stay.

And on that note -- anyone got any ideas how I can get Alexander Cain removed and/or turned over to my person? All inquiries as to the legitimacy of my identity may be answered at alexander_cain (at) yahoo (dot) com. I assure you if any trolling or otherwise mischevious behavior occurs out of that account, it is not me. I have had my identity stolen on the Internet before -- at least one occassion by Mr. Bryant -- and this is just another sad and pathetic incident of an individual who obviously mistook me for someone who gives a damn. --The Real Alexander Cain 05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments above are typical from Chad "Chadlee" Bryant, who has worked tirelessly for YEARS to harass and ridicule me at every opportunity. I do wish someone could make him stop. Alexander Cain 05:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has become quite inane and I do not wish to remove from the discussion point of the entry with such interruptions; however, I can assure you that *I* am the real AC, NOT that person, and anyone who wishes to e-mail me (especially now that Wikipedia has confirmed my address) may do so to confirm it. I will be requesting a check user and a ban on the person above. Why Chad chooses to engage in such immature behavior on an entry like this is unknown; however, if you check his history -- that is, the history before Chadbryant was banned for his behavior and started creating sockpuppets such as that one to get around it -- you will see this is fairly common for him. --The Real Alexander Cain 15:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Bryant is unyielding in his abuse of Wikipedia and its resources. I do suggest that he be banned once again. This immature behavior speaks volumes about his mental health. Alexander Cain 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was not mentioned in the AFD, and nobody whose opinions were counted and opined after it was a new user, so it didn't matter to the AFD. GRBerry 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It shows why "TruthCrusader" proposed this deletion review based on the fradulent claims of "consensus" . He is crying because a big mean admin deleted his personal project and soapbox. Alexander Cain 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  — Alexander Cain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse Once you eliminated the WP:ILIKEIT arguments from the discussion, there was clearly a consensus to delete. --Farix (Talk) 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It appears that User:TruthCrusader has already attempted to subvert the Wikipedia process and recreate rec.sport.pro-wrestling with the sockpuppet User:God of RSPW. Manager Of Champions 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If nothing else, it'll remove the battleground for User:TruthCrusader and Chad Bryant's off-wiki fight. Let them take it elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Never deserved an article in the first place, Keep deleted... and protect it With this article gone, hopefully the users that came with it will be productive elsewhere rather than waste their time on this pointless article. semper fi — Moe 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skulltag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|Nov. DRV)

Premature deletion despite posted info saying article was going to be updated in minutes.Catman847 04:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had this posted a mere 3 minutes before it was proposed for deletion. Doesn't it seem that most normal people wouldn't be wanting to delete an article after it was only on for 3 minutes? It seems like the person proposing the deletion was waiting for this to pop-up so they could have it deleted. Also, the Keep-Delete vote was ignored (5-3 in favor of keeping).

• Read Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. An article can be speedy deleted if the page was previously deleted in a deletion discussion, which has happened with Skulltag. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I did, and i found something very interesting in it. You might want to read this.

Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation.

• • That was in the article, 2nd paragraph. also, MY article said that it was going to be updates soon, and you also ran right through that too. so the article's fate is still up for grabs. Catman847 05:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't. You've got to argue why the first AfD was invalid. Just because this new revision is "your article" doesn't mean it overrides that previous deletion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it looks like it wasn't even deleted, just a protected redirect. I guess we treat the redirect as a contested WP:CSD#G4 (recreated article) for this review. ~ trialsanderrors 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I don't know why it was closed like that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had posted that it would be updated in 5 minutes. In that 5 minutes, I could have given a valid site proving its notibility in that update. Catman847 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can still do that here, now... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • well, it will also depend on what you think notable is. The site that i'm giving is the main page for Skulltag, and should be considered notable enough: http://www.skulltag.com Catman847 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's doesn't count. Anyone can make a website; that doesn't indicate that they're notable, only that they can make a website. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How can that not count?!? That's the site where Skulltag is based around! Maybe if you WENT to the site, you would see that. Catman847 05:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was looking through the history of Skulltag on Wikipedia and saw that there was a Skulltag article that had the Skulltag site as a NOTABLE SITE! This means that there is yet 1 more site that is notable for this. Catman847 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • We need something indicating Skulltag's notability. A link to their own website doesn't indicate that. I could link to my website, but it doesn't mean I should get an article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I just remembered something that would completely establish its notibility (also in my opinion) [7] Linked from sites: [8] [http://www.skulltag.com/forum I also did not create that.Catman847 05:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please, read WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOFTWARE, and take a glance at WP:RS and WP:V. A Doom fan wiki also isn't enough. It needs serious media coverage or something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If it weren't notable, then why is it HERE: Doom_source_ports#Skulltag I'm sure that THIS SITE also establishes notability. Catman847 06:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (funny as that is). Anyways, Skulltag was plopped into there because the deletion discussion determined that it had just enough notability to be part of that larger article, but not enough to stand alone. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, then why does an article need so much notability? also, you said it has levels on notability to be put into an article, so it would seem that the notability i'm giving should be enough for it to have its own article. Catman847 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • More sites: [9], [10], [11], [12] Catman847 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - arm-waving and shouting "biased deletion!" for no apparent reason will not get your article back. Flyingtoaster1337 11:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, entirely valid AfD. JIP | Talk 11:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion again AFD was valid. We've previously reviewed that close. No new and pertinent information here, as there are no independent and reliable published sources mentioned. Also endorse having a protected redirect; doing so was the result of the last deletion review and subsequent events demonstrate that protection is needed. GRBerry 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • there were no sources posted in the AfD, but there are many here. how can you say there are no reliable sources when there are numerous sources listed here?Catman847 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do your sources fit WP:RS (which specifically says blogs, wikis and forums are not to be used as sources)? Saying they are reliable does not make them so. ColourBurst 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Links 2, 3 and 5 aren't forums, wikis, or blogs. Catman847 15:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. 2 is not independent, No. 3 is a directory listing (see WP:NOT) and No. 5 is a personal fansite which would also be considered unreliable. ColourBurst 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How can you say 5 is a fansite?!? 5 isn't a fansite! It's a video game site that rates different video games. That specific page was about DooM source ports, and is a notable source.Catman847 01:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reread what is considered a reliable source. A non-notable, Tripod-hosted, personally-run website (even if does do game reviews) is hardly reliable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:RS is stated as a guideline. Also, the article about independent sources is neither a policy, nor a guideline, so its relevance only affects SOME wikipedians, as stated at the top of the article. Also, the fact that WP:SOFTWARE was considered a guideline in the AfD gave it more notability then it currently had, so it should not have been used to assist with the deletion of this article.Helllord013 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion valid AfD, no relevant new information given. I hope the nominator was joking when they said someone was "waiting for this to pop-up so they could have it deleted", as it's one of the silliest things I've heard on WP yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, redirect, AfD and previous DRV. No new information. No reliable sources. No article. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I found out some new info that is a notable site. Scroll up, because i posted it as a reply to an earlier argument.Catman847 03:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has enough notable sources and should be kept. The skulltag site was used as a notable source in a previous skulltag article, and is still notable208.26.106.2 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A valid idea for an article, this should be kept. There are many things that cannot be explained in a tiny portion of the Doom Source Port article.Helllord013 17:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  — Helllord013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Endorse protected redirect This was the consensus before. Individual source ports don't need individual pages, but they all share one page at Doom source port. I don't know why the last redirect wasn't protected to prevent another mess like this. 70.252.110.148 Rivecoder 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Catman, i'm gonna help you by giving an extremely notable site. this site is from the maker of Doom. (http://rome.ro/2005/12/happy-birthday-doom.html) Helllord013 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. Catman gave many notable sources in its defence, and the site Helllord13 gave is from John Romero, the maker of Doom, and has no reason to not be considered notable. In the article on Romero, his own site is listed, which is notable. So, skulltag.com whould also be considered notable for the assistance of this article.Lord Cwac 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  — Lord Cwac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I needed to put this in before I forgot....Catman847 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; the new users are stating its notability without qualifying it. All of these issues were covered in the AfD, which was perfectly valid. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Word of warning; just like in the AfD, there's a link to this DRV at the Skulltag forum. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NeoChaos, there was no link from the Skulltag forums to the AfD, and didn't you say in the AfD that this was the first time you had heard of Skulltag?? If so, then how would you even know that Skulltag HAD forums?!?Catman847 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, there was a link to the original AfD. And just because I didn't know about Skulltag when I nominated the article two months ago didn't stop me from doing research about the game and it's community. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing in Wikipedia says that notability has to be qualified, just that an article has to have a notable source.71.254.26.207 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... no. My existence, school records, and the like, can be verified from the California government, an obviously notable source. I still don't get an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone on Wikipedia has an article. It's called the User PageCatman847 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, let me re-phrase that then... You don't get an article, but you have a User Page which allows you to say anything you want to, kinda like an article.Catman847 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they don't. They have user pages. User pages are not articles; they're in different namespaces for a reason. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're close enough.71.254.26.207 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, they're not. Did you read the pages I linked to? Articles and userpages are different concepts. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid AFD. {{Afdanons}} applied. --Coredesat 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WoS game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

I realize it's taken me a bit to bring this to DRV, but I don't think it's too late. This template was closed as "no consensus". However, I believe that many who spoke in the discussion failed to understand the nature of our copyright policy. We are deleting YouTube links left and right because they might have a copyvio, whereas, this site nearly always has proven copyvios of downloadable Nintendo games: see [13], which is linked from our Bubble Bobble article. I added this link at the end of the discussion, but no one had time to look on my argument before it was closed. Patstuart^talk|edits 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from closing admin: My decision in this case was slightly more complex than simply viewing a mix of delete and keep votes, and then labelling it "no consensus." Patstuart made a good point when he cited User:Dmcdevit's essay/project on the deletion of all WP:EL non-compliant YouTube links. I agree with both Dmcdevit and Patstuart on this issue. However, the implementation of Dmcdevit's initiative has been marked with controversy, and has been occasionally characterized as unilateral in nature. I felt that even though the template should be deleted, there was no consensus in the TfD debate itself, especially given that the best argument raised in favor of deletion has been judged controversial at best by the community at large. Regardless of my personal opinions on the template, I felt that it was not within my latitude to close the debate as delete. If the template in question had been an overt violation of policy, I would have invoked WP:IAR against consensus in order to benefit the encyclopedia, but in this case I did not feel the template in question fell within those bounds. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bubble Bobble on the ZX Spectrum was published by Firebird Software, who are owned by British Telecom. World of Spectrum has explicit permission from British Telecom to distribute their material: see http://www.worldofspectrum.org/showwrap.cgi?permit=houses/BritishTelecom.pmt (you'll have to copy and paste the link to bypass the anti deep-linking script). While there is an issue as to whether BT were within the rights of their licensing agreement to grant that permission, I think this shows that the issue isn't as simple as is being made out. Yes, a lot of the material on WoS is formally a copyright violation, but I'm not convinced that means we should delete the entire template, which does have legitimate uses. (Disclaimer: I am one of the maintainers of World of Spectrum). --Pak21 07:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understood the copyright notice. Sounded more to me like he was saying that BT had nothing to do with this software but to "exploit it", and that they're "no longer involved". But I concede I could be misreading the text. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and keep: While I agree with Pak21 that the case for Bubble Bobble for the ZX Spectrum is not a clear cut, along with a great many other titles, I removed the link a week ago when the issue was raised - just to be on the safe side. This is what should be done for any links which editors believes are copyvios, whether they are templated or not. The people responsible for the site to which the template links, do a great job in obtaining permissions, and it's incorrect to asume that a violation is in effect just because it is possible to download a particular game from WoS. Permissions have been granted from many individuals and companies (http://www.worldofspectrum.org/permits/). BTW: Bubble Bobble is not Nintendo property, but Taito. --Frodet 10:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus close This was within reasonable range of admin discretion, given the discussion. It is not transparently obvious that any given link is necessarily a violation, so I can't see a policy requiring deletion of the template. GRBerry 14:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Sonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was deleted as CSD A7, but its creator wishes to dispute the deletion so I'm listing this on his behalf. He wrote on my talk page [14]:

I understand that you needed to know why he is notable, but to clear things up, I am Lil' Sonic. Many rappers ask why me, as the youngest producer who has been given good reviews by signed musicians like Jin and Jojo didn't have a Wiki telling all about me, how young I started etc.. so skeptics would know how long I have been performing etc.. In fact a fan was the one who informed me that the page was deleted.. and that they thought their computer had a problem or something, then I got your message.. Can this please be reversed? I notably was the youngest and currently the youngest hip-hop producer in New England. That has to count as something, also because I make music that is compared to the best of the best, not to be bigheaded but i'm told this on countless occasion, please review my request and take your time to decide on any action. Thanks.

Google hits for "Lil' Sonic": [15] Flyingtoaster1337 02:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion 60 unique Google hits isn't anything special (I have 4 times that), and stories about being asked why you don't have "a wiki" are not the same as reliable sources. Finally, a self-nom generally suggests WP:COI issues. You might want to have a look at our guidelines for musicians. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, that's not even close to an A7, looking at the google cache for the article. I can't say I like COI, though. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list the version deleted by User:Steel359. (The two newer versions are just attempts by someone who doesn't understand our process arcana to open this deletion review.) I doubt it will survive AFD absent the production of independent and reliable published sources, but I am aware that 1) I don't participate in music AFDs and 2) WP:MUSIC is a lot more inclusionist than I am. GRBerry 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list: "Sonic has produced numerous hit singles for various music megastars" (from Google's cached version) is an assertion of notability. --Pak21 07:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making false claims are not valid notability. Not even the article lists which various music megastars these are. The kid is in high school, he's made over 700 mixtapes, which anybody can do. Endorse deletion, there are no WP:reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, even if it weren't an A7 (which I believe it is, since unsubstantiated claims to notability are of little merit), it would fail WP:AUTO and therefore almost certainly WP:NPOV, also by the looks of it WP:N/WP:MUSIC, WP:V and so on. Come back when the second album goes platinum. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, not an A7. Period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So lying claims of notability are not speedyable? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles that assert notability are not speedyable under A7. Some "lying claims," as you put it, may fall under a different banner, but not A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hoaxes are explicitly not speedyable. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria, second bullet. That is as close as I see the policy getting to discussing false claims to notability. WP:CSD#A7 is for an article "that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." Belief that a claim is a lie indicates that the claim is controversial, and CSD#A7 then says to take it to AFD. Now, WP:IAR might be applied in some cases, CSD#A7 was the offered reason for deleting this article. GRBerry 23:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was easier for me to hit "CSD A7" using my CSD js script (a modified version of this) than to type out my actual reasoning. Unhelpful? Probably. Do I care? Not really. -- Steel 01:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's good to know you don't care about clarity or accuracy when deleting articles. Absolutely incredible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh please. I have always read A7 as no credible claim to notability (else we would be unable to delete "John Doe is widely accounted the smartest and best-looking man in the world" type nonsense). If you genuinely believe this subject is notable then you have my blessing (and I'm guessing the others here as well) to go out and write a neutral article on him based on numerous credible sources. Are you confident that could be done here? Becauise there are three hurdles to overcome: one is that it appears nobody but the creator actually cares; another is that no credible sources were presented in the article; and three, it's a vanity page. If you set out to write an article with decent sources then you would have fixed all three problems. Otherwise we take this at face value, which is a piece of fluff created by an enthusiastic kid, to be kindly but firmly deleted, and move on. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm certainly not confident that a neutral article can be written here. On the other hand, I'm not (quite) confident that a neutral article can't be written either, and it's very much the latter rather than the former which I think we should be using as a criteria for speedy deletion. Cheers --Pak21 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's "credible" and then there's "nonsensical." Your example is nonsensical, and that would be a worthwhile speedy under nonsense. Then there's this, which wasn't nonsensical or patently incredible. I don't know if the subject is notable or not - I do know that the article asserted that the subject was notable, and that disqualifies it from an A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Only if the claim is credible. Which it isn't. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Some 16 year old rapper named "Lil' Sonic" writes an article on himself. "Sonic claims he is waiting for a chance to be heard by major labels, but he won't use that to hold back on doing what he loves best, and that is making good music". Oh, please. -- Steel 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and if A7 doesn't fly, then the claims are ludicrous enough to be patent nonsense. Proto::► 10:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. Given mixtape culture, I'm not thinking it's that ludicrous at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. An article on a 16-year old who claims to have "produced numerous hit singles for various music megastars", with no actual sources or anything to substantiate these claims. Plus a lot of vanity and self-promotion. I don't think so. WarpstarRider 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point out which speedy criteria you're using to endorse this, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, obvious self-promotion, valid A7, crystal ball. >Radiant< 16:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can point out where "obvious self-promotion" and "crystal ball" are in our speedy deletion guidelines? Furthermore, can you define "assertion of notability" for us? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • G11, of course, and also WP:BALLS. Perhaps you could define "argumentative" for us? >Radiant< 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • G11 is for irredeemable spam, not for self-promotion. WP:BALLS is not a speedy deletion criteria, either. I don't care if I'm being argumentative - it's disturbing to see how many administrators don't understand basic speedy deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's unfortunate (I'd like to say "disturbing" but this is hardly novel) that you don't understand the Fifth Pillar. It is, nevertheless, an important one. >Radiant< 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • One of the points made in the Fifth Pillar is that "All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content." However, making content inaccessible to non-admins is exactly what we're talking about here, so my personal view is that we should be very cautious when invoking WP:IAR to delete content. Cheers --Pak21 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I've demonstrated a few times, my understanding of pillar five is not in question. If your understanding of pillar five allows you to think you're correct here, please resign immediately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, Jeff, you get funnier every day. Indeed, before something can be questioned, it has to exist in the first place. >Radiant< 07:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm glad you're amused, because I wasn't kidding. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. "These criteria are worded narrowly, and generally so phrased that, in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion". The question is, do transparently false claims "assert the importance or significance of its subject". Not to me they don't, and reasonable editors are agreeing that they don't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that they are not "transparently false". Sounding unlikely does not make it transparently false. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could turn into pantomime: "Oh yes they are". I'll stick with transparently false; the most cursory research distinguishes the two. The assumption that valid articles are speedily deleted is difficult to confirm without sysop rights, but I'm more than willing to concede that they are as I've seen it happen. How, for example, did La soupe aux choux get speedied? This article, however, wasn't one of them. The assertions of importance or significance were and are false. Transparently so to me, but not to you. I don't really care if an article on a schoolboy who cuts mix tapes gets deleted speedily, gets deleted after a {{prod}}, or gets deleted at AfD. It's going to get deleted, and the least fuss and bother is best. Now that we're here, Jeff is going to demonstrate his failure to grasp the first of the five pillars, various process wonks are going to argue that Wikipedia really is a bureaucracy, and that process is not only important, it's sacred. In the end the article will remain deleted. It would be nice if we could all agree that bringing hopeless procedural cases to DRV is a waste of everyone's time and energy, and save it for deserving articles, or improving the encyclopedia. How naive is that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, am I? Nope, looking at the first pillar again, I get that one fine. Still. This wasn't an A7, and DRV is about process. You don't like it? Start trying to change A7 or DRV. It seems like you're the one who fails to grasp the basics, not me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree - no surprise - this article had no place in an encyclopedia. Having read the actual text, the choice of CSDs clearly does include G11. The prod will have had its five days before this DRV is up. Everything that's been done is perfectly fine by me and entirely in line with the metarules. There's no need to waste electrons on an AfD for a hopeless case of vanispam. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, list at Afd Vexingly, obviously dubious content is not speedy deletable under current CSD criteria if the article makes even a slight unsourced claim to notability. I look forward to the afd of his royal highness Lil' Sonic. (From his website: "As humble as they come, [Lil' Sonic] chose not to reveal his royal status to anyone once in America, choosing rather to humbly work and build relationships in the music industry solely on the merits of his talent and not on his royal status." Bwithh 02:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK. I restored the history. Perhaps someone could point out to me what text in which revision equates to what a rational person with their critical faculties intact would accept as a claim of notability? Guy (Help!) 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many things which you would accept as claims of notability, if you accepted they were true. You do not accept the truth, and I do not, but others might. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all in the lead. Those assertions, true or not, are controversial, thus disqualifying it for the speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...which is functionally equivalent to "John Doe is a famous blah" - without even a hint of a source, and in the case of someone sixteen years old, it fails the O RLY? test. Do you really think that when a sixteen-year-old creates an article saying how famous he is, we should allow that as an assertion of notability? Really? A credible assertion of notability would be signed to a label or something like that, not "I am famous". Guy (Help!) 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no, it isn't, but we're running around in circles here. Do I really think a 16 year old rapper has the ability to have produced various stars along the east coast? Yes, I do think so. It's not out of the realm of possibility. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The one that was most obvious to me: "is well known for" [it doesn't matter what, that is a claim]. Producing for megastars is another. Near the end "countlessly compared to" is a third, weaker claim. I don't expect the AFD to be significantly more divisive than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poison the Hedgehog, which is either a hoax or piece of fanon never mentioned on the web that I had to nominate as a contested prod. GRBerry 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, great. Then all of those articles which says "Fred Smith is well known for his large sexual organ and his success with women" have to go to AfD? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn and list, reads somewhat like an advertisement (especially the "Biography" and "Hear his music" section breaks), and is close to G11. However, notability is indeed dubious (the most I can find is "750 compositions" - which doesn't cut it if none are released - and one of his songs being played on a local radio station, which isn't hard, really), and AFD may be a better venue to discuss it. --Coredesat 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • G11 requires a fundamental rewrite. Some spam-like language does not constitute a full G11. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I didn't just say it was G11. The text can just be removed if the article is fully undeleted. It doesn't answer the question of notability, which is questionable and would probably be better discussed at AFD. --Coredesat 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list on AFD. I think Jeff's take on this is right: It looks like it should be deleted, but I don't think it's speedyable, and if people want to be able to speedy things that don't meet WP:CSD, they should revise the damn policy page first. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• this should not have come here the proper action when someone wants to contest a Speedy is to list for AfD. Why was it done otherwise? WP:CSD: "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, [fall under a given criterion] discussion is recommended," it wasn't speediable if so many of us are contesting it. I've commented on this on the CSD talk p. also. DGG 23:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do you find documentation which supports this claim? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods