Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 26

File:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

This image is a legitimate flyer that was distributed by the Million Dads March Network at a rally in Topeka, KS, Washington DC, Albuquerque, and New Jersey. It was used only on the article about the Million Dads March Network, as part of a description about the organization. There is no reason to delete it, because it's relevant to the article and doesn't violate wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. Thomas Lessman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article the image was used in looks to be on the way to deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Dads March Network. Presumeably the flyer is a copyrighted work so even if deletion review was succesful it would then just be deleted as an orphaned non-free image anyway. Since the article doesn't mention the materials used or handed out by the group it does seem that the image may have just been there to disparage the subject rather than to illustrate those materials - in which case speedy G10 was appropriate. Guest9999 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Valid speedy - attack image that was being used to illustrate an article about a men's group not an article documenting any sources concerns about the subject of the article. I'd say it does breech BLP and in any event the article concerned is up for deletion and likely to be deleted so this all seems rather moot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Spartaz. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion image was not used in a manner that would qualify under fair use and was likley the copyrighted material of the organization discussed above. The material was apparently used in a manner to disparage the subject, and therefore qualifies as attack media. So double whammy csd reasons G10, G12/I9.JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 1 The Million Dads March Network article will likely stay. Once concerns were raised about it, the resulting debates revealed what was needed to save it. We're gathering that information, some of it has been posted, and more is on the way over the next week. Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 2 The article originally DID mention that the flyer image was one of the pieces of literature distributed by the MDM Network. Someone else later deleted that information. I'm looking for a reference or citation to verify it. Most of the media coverage for those rallies was on the Radio. Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 3 The only "copyright" on the image is the same as with the historical maps I've created and uploaded. They are free use for public or educational use, on condition of leaving the Image's name/author/source/and Date. This flyer doesn't have that information, which is fine. As long as it's for public or educational use, and as long as the user includes info about where he got the image and who the original author is. What kind of license would that fall under? Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry how do you derive that as the copyright? This was a flyer designed by someone, that someone has an automatic and implicit copyright ownership of their original creative work. Has that person explicitly agreed to a release it under a free license? (i.e. not an assumption and printing up a million copies and distributing them for free isn't such an explicit release, they still have copyright control of their own work). I'm also not sure what "public or educational use" means, I can't see the need to distinguish between public and educational, unless this is some sort of non-commercial license, which is not a permissible license for wikipedia. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the image, several years ago, and thus any copyright would be held by me. And I made the flyer available under the free license with attribution. So copyright shouldn't be an issue with this image. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse. Looking at the image (it is also on the internet), it is inconceivable that we would use it in an article on the organisation; a mere piece of literature distributed verbal;ly and pictorially attacking one judge in one particular state is not a good single representative image of their activity. The content furthermore is a clear violation of BLP. Even if it were PD it would be an obvious G10. DGG (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Found the image on the net...pure attack. And I'm fairly certain that the copyright for image the head was stuck on to belongs to George Lucas. Also, the article this is/was to be used in is headed for a unanimous delete. --Smashville^BONK! 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's a moot point now as the article has been deleted. --Smashville^BONK! 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sisters (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Improper speedy delete. My nomination was not WP:POINT. While it's true I nominate a number of articles for deletion, each has resulted in a valid AfD discussion. This one wasn't even given the chance. The TV show is not current, there is no discussion of the show outside the fandom and the sole source of the article is an IMDb link, which is not considered reliable. I believe the nomination was closed as WP:Point because the person doing so User:Greswick or User:D.M.N. do not like that I nominated an article they worked on for deletion. If someone truly believes Sisters (TV series) should be kept, I'd like to know why. This is clearly a wrongly tagged speedy. With the exception of Air transport.... which I agree may have been a poor nomination on my part, my other nominations are currently undergoing valid discussion. Kumqat1406 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment nom seems to mean improper speedy keep, not improper speedy delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no requirement in policy that we just write about things still on the air or still massively popular. A cursory glance reveals a lot of potential sources from newspapers, 1,000+ actually.[1] This just had no chance of being deleted... say what you want about "Secret" he does know what the precedents in deletion are as well as almost anyone. Your nomination is wildly out of step even with the current deletionist attitude towards fiction. I might have let the AFD run, but I see no point in overturning the decision at this point. --W.marsh 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my Speedy close major tv shows by the major four networks are never deleted in AFD, no matter if they are still in the air or not. I highly recommend to read WP:OUTCOMES as well, and to not nominate an article based on notabilty guidelines for deletion first without checking if reliable sources exist for the article. Secret ^account 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've read Outcomes, as well as Wikipedia:Television episodes, which states, "All discussion and interpretation of television episodes must be supported by reliable, published sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand...Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and originality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work. " None of that was present in the article, the image in the article is up for deletion due to copyright issues (I have no connection with this, saw the bot comment on the page). I stand by this being an improper speedy. Is someone supposed to read every single AfD to know if an article could possibly be deleted? WP:Outcomes didn't appear to cover much on the topic of television, instead leading to Wikipedia:Television episodes, which itself is in dispute. If the article were worthy of inclusion, someone would have maintained the article and sourced it and... Just because it was on a network 12 years ago means it's notable and encylopedic? That seems like WP:Otherstuff in and of itself. I respect the comments put here, but I don't think the AfD was handled properly. Kumqat1406 (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's not a television espisote though, it's an Emmy award winning show. Secret ^account 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the speedy closure (primarily based on the rather poor nomination, if it had been a strong policy based nomination then it would have been different), but aren't comfortable with your comments on "never deleted in AFD" and WP:OUTCOMES. Neither are Stare decisis, certainly consensus can change and consensus doesn't trump our core policies. It should be quite evident that if we close stuff early because we never delete becomes rather self fulfilling. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a self-correcting problem; for one thing, if they object, they can always take it here, where people are pretty free about sending things to AfD. People are pretty noisy, and anything where we ignore consensus will get squeaky wheels that demand correction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's plain wrong, wikipedia shouldn't be about shouting loudly. There is nothing in WP:DP which permits closure of debates based on WP:OUTCOMES or an admin judged "precedent", indeed as already pointed out we explicitly don't do such, even WP:OUTCOMES notes that consensus can change. If the community wanted that to apply, then the community can gain consensus to change WP:DP to reflect it, it hasn't and I doubt you'd get a consensus to do so. Indeed read the citing in AFD section of WP:OUTCOMES and it's pretty clear about the weight it has. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure clearly not non-notable; no other outcome was possible. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure it's a TV show that ran for six seasons on a major network and received an Emmy award. How could it not be kept?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. It would have been preferable to allow some "keep" recommendations to pile up before closing the AfD per WP:SNOW. However, declaring Sisters non-notable would be imposing a standard of notability much, much higher than any currently imposed on Wikipedia for television series. (If we only carried articles about television series as popular as Cheers or Seinfeld, as the AfD nom suggested, we could throw out about 95% of the television series articles in Wikipedia.) If there is a concern about lack of independent sources, it would be better to tag the article with {{onesource}} rather than seeking deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as {{onesource}} per your suggestion. I doubt any cleanup will be done since the article is not currently maintained but *shrug* I'll let this go, although I do not agree with being classed an SPA since I don't believe attempting to improve Wikipedia by proposing the deletion of possibly unencyclopedic articles is a part of SPA. Kumqat1406 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Neutral' - probably is notable but could someone find some evidence (significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources), would help settle the situation since none is present in the article or was presented in the (brief) AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Endorse closure - missed a link to 1000 sources... oops. Guest9999 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several people have done that in this DRV, in fact every comment except the nominator provides some such evidence... it won an Emmy award and over 1,000 published sources seem to exist. --W.marsh 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I missed the link and forgot to uncheck the "past month" box when I did my own search. Double mistake. Apologies, Guest9999 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure per above. Appears to be the action of a disruptive SPA. Caknuck (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per overwheming precedent, notability guidelines have established that any television series broadcast on a national level at any point in time is de facto notable, and then there's the little issue of the Emmy Awards it won. 23skidoo (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. This DRV is nonsense. Corvus cornix_talk 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I'll WP:AGF up to this point, but if the nominator continues to make up xer own standards for articles that's a fast walk off a short plank. There simply isn't any valid argument for deletion, which is based on consensus about the notability of the topic, not whether an article is being actively improved or not. Also, it's in direct contradiction to WP:RECENTISM, which is one of the few things on which non-deletionists frequently agree. I don't think anyone else in the project has really seriously argued for notability being based on "sticking power". --Dhartung | Talk 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per above comments. D.M.N. (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy keep. Nomination was at best misguided, at worst deliberate disruption. Emmy award winner, long-running TV series, etc. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Having looked at the article and the above comments, the show appears to be notable and neither an AfD nor this resulting DRV was needed. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, although I certainly would have given it more that 20 minutes and one comment on AfD, the fact is, there's no way it would be deleted, and re-opening the debate would serve no purpose other than worship of bureaucracy. --Stormie (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Greg Benson AfD discussion was closed as a no consensus/default keep despite there being a clear consensus to delete. Although two editors actually submitted multiple keep votes, their comments were overwhelmed by seven votes in favor of deletion. Those commenting in favor of deletion included the article's original author, who changed his mind after finding out that the article's subject would rather have it deleted. Further, several delete comments specifically addressed and discounted the sources used in compiling the article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's rather disturbing that information in this article is basically sourced to his birth certificate. The other sources are all YouTube and IMDB and others that are not optimal for writing an encyclopedia article, the only real prose one is just a press release. This article is built up skillfully but the sourcing is really weak, I'd have voted to delete at AFD, I think. And reading the AFD... this probably should have been closed as a delete... the two people who wanted to keep it didn't provide very strong arguments. Either Relist or outright Delete. --W.marsh 21:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural objection (as closing administrator) no effort whatsoever was made to discuss this closing before listing it at DELREV. This is contrary to the instructions provided at WP:DELREV. I would have expected an administrator nominator to know this and at least try to follow the instructions. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is true. I'm not sure any admin has ever objected on these grounds since that wording was changed... I'm not really sure what we're supposed to do. As I said on WT:DRV that wording is problematic since it doesn't make sense to invalidate an otherwise valid DRV over a lack of notification before the DRV. So you're setting a precedent, Jerry! --W.marsh 21:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, this was a hasty oversight on my part. I have asked Jerry to engage in a dialog on his talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've agreed to continue the discussion here. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omg! Do we now have an even more complicated system then we used to where admins can now object to a DRV because the right forms were not filled out in triplicate first? I'm sorry but I don't see the point of this. DRV is to help users get decisions reviewed and adding hurdles simply adds to the concept of one rule for admins and one rule for everyone else. I'm sorry by I procedurally object to Jerry's procedural objection. I agree that the nominator should have contacted the closing admin but we have all been at the shitty end of this kind of thing and its just one of the joys of being an admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Straw polls are not a substitute for dialogue. If a difference in opinion can be rationally explained to a sufficiently reasonable admin, the admin can choose to overturn his/ her own closing. Also he/she may be able to point out a fatal flaw in the objector's logic, and the objector may say "oh, yeah, my bad." This would eliminate the need for a 5-day mudslinging, feeling-hurting, bad-faith generating, space-wasting, time-consuming, crappy shitty-ended delrev. To raise an objection and create time for such a rational dialogue seems prudent. But when the mudslinging starts in earnest anyway... then away we go. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with your principle and indeed agree that lack of attempted discussion should be highlighted, but per WP:NOT a bureacracy we wouldn't invalidate a DRV discussion on such a basis. (I'm sure there are plenty out there who'd happily wait the 5 days and if they didn't get the result they wanted dive in with lack of discussion as a reason to run the whole thing again). In addition to the scenario's you point out, for speedy's few admins will turn down an established contributors desire to fix up a broken article. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's further discussion about this rule here. --W.marsh 23:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Even as a person who favored "keep," I find it odd for someone to declare there wasn't a consensus to delete. In the second discussion, I think I may even have been the only keep! While it's not a vote, and I stand by my reasoning for going with "keep," the consensus the other way seemed pretty clear to me.Lawikitejana (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Closing admin) I felt the discussion was sufficiently divided among responsible wikipedians, which I used my discretion to determine that consensus was not achieved. The benefit of the doubt goes toward keep. Also, several of the delete's said article lacks sources altogether, which seemed to have been subsequently added. Here was my specific assessment:
• Delete

1. Seriousspender - no third-party sources. Also recommends redirect.
2. Michig - No significant coverage. No real claim to notability
3. Secret account - sources are unreliable
4. Master Of Puppets - notability isn't inherited
5. Earthbendingmaster - per above

• Neutral

1. anetode (nom) - says "I'm not sure that there's enough here to establish notability" and does not make a specific recommendation.

• Keep

1. Shoessss - subject is notable for creating/producing notable shows
2. Jammy0002 (creator) - the article is very new and thinks the article can be improved. He later said delete, but under false logic of subject request.
3. Lawikitejana - third-party reliable sources have bene added, including a second honor for film work, selected as a finalist in prestigious competition, weeks of being featured on Amazon.com's main page.

• Contradictory

1. lifebaka - article is a coatrack and fails WP:N, He removed the section that had sources, and says it now lacks sources. But then he goes on to say that addition of references would likely fix the problems with the article.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Discounting Jammy0002's change of vote as being under the pretense of "false logic" is not within the discretion of the closing admin. I don't think it makes sense to lump him in with the keeps.

He provided valid rationale for keep, and invalid rationale for delete. The delete needed to be discounted per the rough consensus guidelines. Please do not take the format of my rationale above as a votecount. It was just a organized way to list my analysis of each person's comment.JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't twist a delete into a keep. When an editor decides to strike out their initial appraisal, it is not in the administrator's discretion to select which suggestion they like better. Besides, Jammy's rationale for deletion was firmly grounded in WP:BLP (if not explicitely invoked). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I might have not made it sufficiently clear, I was not a neutral party to the discussion. The nomination was put forth because I think the article should be deleted.

I took your words on face value, and assumed it was a procedural nomination, as it quite common. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I'll be more specific in future noms. I nominate articles for deletion when a speedy deletion might be controversial - this one wasn't far off from being a clear A7. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it makes sense to discount lifebaka's vote as self-contradictory. It appears that lifebaka was not satisfied with the sources used in the article and went on to do something about it. The suggestion to provide more reliable sources did not invalidate the original comment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that he removed sources and stated if reliable sources were added then according to him his delete recommendation would be self-discounted. Such sources were added, so I understood his comment as "ignore me if reliable sources get added". People seem to sometimes leave such a comment if they know they do not have the intention to follow-up due to time constraints or lack of interest. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to evaluate whether the revised article would have passed muster by lifebaka without his input. I take it that you meant to classify his comments as discounted and not merely contradictory. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Contradictory could be construed to mean bad faith or nonsense, which I did not intend. Discounted per his own recommendation might have been a better way to summarize that on my part. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn & Delete The article was nominated on the basis of notability and if the article had no real world sources then policy says it needs to be deleted. Consensus needs to be judged against policy and my reading of this was that notability was not established Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete sources, sources, sources, if an AFD has an issue with lack of sources that wasn't rebutted, it most likely should be closed as delete, AFD is policy based consensus. Secret ^account 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, OK, but 3 sources were added. Didya notice that bit? Same question to that guy above you. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources and none were acceptable... press releases, birth certificates (!) and database results do not make for an accurate, neutral and complete encyclopedia article. --W.marsh 00:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Concede (as closer) from the responses here, it is apparent that I determined rough consensus incorrectly. Nearest admin please close as "speedy overturn with closing admin's concurrence" JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not quite sure why the page to this important movement in contemporary art has been protected. Please make it possible for me to edit it. Thank you. --talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like this page has been recreated many times but all versions have the same problems. I think we need to keep deleted unless you can show independent sources talking about how this movement exists and is considered important. --W.marsh 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion make a passable article in userspace and then request an admin unprotect and move it. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'm presuming this is a request for the page to be unsalted. The last deletion was a copyvio and the ones before that were valid G4 ones. Please follow Jerry's excellent advice and create an article in your userspace and resubmit it for approval here. This will require at least two reliable sources to have any chance whatever. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - found some sources (some better tha others) not really enough to overturn the consensus of the AfD. One article in the New York Times [2] and a few others of varying quality (including Wired.com, local/university publications, blogs, etc.) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. It would probably be appropriate to merge some information to Miltos Manetas (but not so much that it becomes a coatrack). Guest9999 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Sucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD1|AfD2)

The content of the article has been preserved at User talk:Allstarecho/SS so that editors may continue to work on and source the information further pending this deletion review. Preservation of the article content in my userspace does not end this deletion review as the concerns that brought this deletion review still stand. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides no rationale or explanation by the closing admin, it is better to actually do some work on the article to bring it up to standards, than it is to just simply delete the article. I found several reliable sources including Variety, Boston University Daily Free Press, Entertainment Weekly (1), Entertainment Weekly (2), Entertainment Weekly (3), USA Today (1), USA Today (2), CNET News.com - all of which certainly do make it meet WP:WEB and WP:NN, which was the main argument of the few that were of the opinion to delete this article. Granted, the "keep" opinions in the AfD mostly came from single purpose accounts, that still doesn't rule them invalid when they make coherent and justified arguments. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Recreate Endorse deletion but suggest article recreation This does not need to go through the deletion review at all, it's just a waste of time. The version before the deletion was a problematic version with no reliable sources, but if you can create make one that passes WP:WEB then go ahead and recreate the article, no objections from anyone. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what was a waste of time was the article being AfD'ed and deleted in the first place. It should be undeleted and cleaned up with sources rather than deleted. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have the article undeleted, the best way is to ask an admin for the copy of the deleted article, as long as the article does not contain anything libelous, the admin should provide you the deleted article to your own userpage namespace, which you can work on. Then after citing enough sources so it passes WP:WEB, move it back to the article namespace. It is a lot easier, and this process does not need to involve deletion review, which is time consuming and unnessesary in this case. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 21:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• With All due respect I added at least four reliable sources, two from USA Today One from the Chicago tribune all from the era when Sucks was first hitting the public consciousness. I also added a citation to the Dec 2007 Entertainment Weekly article that noted Survivor sucks as 14th in a field of 25 top TV based websites and declared it as "Essential" to the reality TV genre. There was already a citation to Chill ones book which was entirely about the survivor spoiling hobby and Survivorsucks role in that effort. I know that the article was a mess. When this whole thing was brought to our attention that was clear. And we were ready to make good faith effort to clean it up. I would hope you would understand that those of us charged with admin duty over there have a 45,000 person community to keep in check and we have nowhere near the number of admins that WP has. I made a good faith effort to fix as much as I could within the few days we had. It seems disingenuous to leave 172 other message board entries up there with little or no reference, or only references to their own FAQ - etc and summarily delete the sucks entry. Owen93 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. Here is what you do. You ask an admin to restore a copy of the article to userspace (a user page or subpage). You do all the work on the article that you seem to want everyone else to do for you. THEN you bring the discussion to DRV so it can be evaluated to see if it passes the notability guidelines, and if it does it gets moved back into the encyclopedia. Trust me, that works a lot better than "Undelete it NOW, or you have to delete 200 other pages too!" --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is what is so frustrating about this process. I don't see anything in my posting that resembles the Straw man assertion of "that you seem to want everyone else to do for you". I also don't say anyone "has to delete" the other message board entries. I did Kvetch about it being disingenuous. I might also point out that it was the seasoned wikipedian who said it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. I DO agree with him but since I'm apparntly a SPA I understand that my opions are likely to be taken at a discount. Owen93 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet, rather than trying to do something that will help get the article back, you're just complaining some more. If you want help in getting it back, let us know. Two people already have given advice on that. If you're just going to yell about how it should be brought back, you're going to end up disappointed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any "yelling" here. Why is UsaSatsui assuming such bad faith on the part of Owen93 when that user spent some great amount of time the last few days to try and bring the article up to wikipedia standards only to see it deleted. I also think it is quite appropriate, fair and significant to point to other articles which are not deleted which seem to be of similar subject/topic and build. Starkrm (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't use the F-word with me. I'm not assuming any faith, either good or bad. Only commenting on actions, or lack thereof. I'm just saying that effort is better spent working on the article in userspace rather than trying to get it undeleted here. The article is in userspace now, anyways, so if he wants to work on it, he can. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "I'm not assuming any faith, either good or bad." Maybe that's part of why you are coming across so harshly, since WP:AGF reads "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia." You called comments by Owen93 complaining and yelling, when, if you assumed good faith, you would have avoided your use of those weasel words. What you did here was not helpful and came across as trolling, because you did not, by your own admission, assume good faith on the part of Owen93. Starkrm (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • ...okay, now what action did this user take that could have been interpreted in bad faith in the first place? You truly believe I think they want the article back as an act of vandalism or disruption? I didn't assume good faith because there was no "faith" to assume. They're upset the article is deleted, and they were doing nothing productive about it (nor other users pushing for overturn). The argument seems to be "This shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, so why should we have to recreate it ourselves?" I was trying to direct them in a productive direction. Note I even offered them help. But it was rejected out of hand. Looking back at it, my tone was probably a bit too harsh, but I don't like it when people do that (and I really don't like it when people tell me to WP:AGF. I'm always do, and am always willing to help those who ask for it). --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why say you are willing to help? Just assume good faith and help. Don't just "talk the talk" you should "walk the walk." This discussion is about recreating the article, not starting from scratch. Editor Owen93 brought some valid points about references and improvements the article was put through after it was nominated for deletion, and you replied with "You (need to) do all the work on the article that you seem to want everyone else to do for you." which is just being snarky. Further you characterize Owen93 as stating "Undelete it NOW, or you have to delete 200 other pages too!" when he said nothing of the sort. If you want to help, just help, don't state that you are so helpful, if you aren't going to do anything. Otherwise your comments here can only be seen as assuming bad faith and trolling. If you wish to respond, do so on my user page, this is the place to talk about restoring the Survivor Sucks article. Starkrm (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • ...Okay, I was a dick. I'm sorry. I stand by what I said, but there's no way I should have used that tone. I could have been a lot nicer. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Speedy Recreate. Starkrm (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, closing admin correctly closed as delete per AfD discussion and WP:WEB criteria. Dreadstar † 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and note that several people above have given the nom outstanding advice on how to get what they want done. Nom should follow the advice. Continued persistent insistence here on an obviously highly-unlikely undeletion only creates delay in getting what they want. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is why should anyone have to recreate it when first, it shouldnt have been deleted in the first place and second, it can just be undeleted so it can be worked on. I mean, come on here, everyone's assertion to just recreate it is ridiculous. You don't delete bad articles on Wikipedia, you clean them up. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you in on a big secret: Google cache. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be using the Google Cache to get content with which to recreate articles... we need to undelete any content we're going to reuse, per the GFDL. --W.marsh 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true if the google cache is used only as a framework to locate sources for the information and the new article does not plagiarize the original, but rather organizes the information from the sources found and produces a whole new article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again.. there were a lot of changes and added references made to the page that do NOT show in the Google Cache99.239.252.37 (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of additional references were added and changes made after that Google snap-shot of the page. As ALLSTAR says, it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, just improvedLittleMatchGirl (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Kind of a tough call to make. Endorse deletion per the discussion, but the version in userspace appears to have enough reliable sources, assuming that about half that article is removed (there is an awful lot of unverifiable original research in there, particularly about the forum culture itself, in-jokes, forum history, etc.) I've followed Survivor since the beginning, and my biggest concern is that the website now called "Survivor Sucks" appears to be a completely different website than the one mentioned in so many sources. - Chardish (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Two things. Yes the forum culture stuff is "on the chopping block" to use survivor terminology. It was edited in by semi-vandalism that should have gotten reverted long ago. "Our bad" for letting it stand. Survivor sucks has gone through a few incarnations. Considering that it has been around for eight years it would be remarkable if it wasn't quite different today than it was in 2000. But the SUCKS of today is a continuous entity and with the recent move to Yuku we were able to once again redirect the original URL to the present incarnation of the community. The Fantasy game aspect has been living at the .org TLD for a couple of years and again that is our bad for not noting it. If it hasn't been stated before sucks management really doesn't desire to be listed for the purposes of attracting new blood, it grows at a steady clip on it's own. But we do think that SurvivorSucks is a genuine way mark on this thing called the web and that it played a significant part in the evolution of the Reality TV revolution. If you don't think that Reality programming changed the landscape of that industry ask someone who makes a living writing for TV, they are not all that happy about how it has affected their livelihood. Owen93 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Schaub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

On June 15, 2007, article was deleted as CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. She is a full professor at Loyola College in Maryland and on the President's Council on Bioethics, either of which on its own seems to satisfy the requirements for notability. While I'm not sure of the state of the article prior to deletion (I just followed a red link), I do think that this should have been an AfD rather than a CSD. I suppose I could just go ahead and recreate the page, but I would prefer not to have to start from scratch. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Speedy Deletionchange to list at AfD, although I doubt it can pass. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not assert any context for meeting WP:PROF. The entire text of the article was: "Dr. Diana Schaub is the chairwoman of the Department of Political Science at Loyola College in Maryland. Dr. Schaub received her Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. She teaches and writes on a wide range of issues in political philosophy and American Political Thought. (Schaub, Diana J. (1995). Erotic Liberalism: Women and Revolution in Montesquieu's "Persian Letters" Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 0-8476-8039-8)." I only find 5 total mentions of this book online, all in catalogues. It has not apparently received wide acclaim or noteworthy review. JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, list Not sure if that'll survive Afd, but it's certainly enough to list for consideration. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn WP:PROF is not a criteria for speedy deletion, and this article asserted importance. This should probably go to AFD where we can examine notability. --W.marsh 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD It's never really a good idea to speedy academics, as they can often turn out to be notable given a bit of research. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this article did assert importance/significance. Should go to AfD.Hut 8.5 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List in AFD chairwoman/chairman of college department of a major school = not A7. Doubt it will pass unless reliable third party sources are located. Secret ^account 23:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Take to AfD importance/signifcance asserted, not an A7 candidate. Unlikely to get through AfD, (Wikipedia is not a news service) but the community has the right to weigh in and anyone who thinks the article should be kept should be allowed the opportunity to look for sources (during the AfD). Guest9999 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List on AFD. Based on what the nom and others have said, the article subject is notable enough to not be a speedy, but without sources it will not survive AfD. But give it a go, anyway. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD - And see if it passes WP:PROF Corpx (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]