Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JuJube (talk | contribs) at 02:21, 31 January 2007 (→[[Vlada Frey]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 29 Deletion review archives: 2007 January January 31 >

30 January 2007

Vlada Frey

Vlada Frey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Why have you deleted Vlada frey? I saw many people getting in his defense on article discussion page. All you "wikipedians" had in your defense is bunch of dumb rules YOU made up. You people act like you have all the knowledge of the world and if there's someone you actually haven't heard of, then that person is not worthy of your precious wikipedia. So what if Vlada doesn't have a web page? Is the internet only thing deserving merit to you? I have read a lot of magazines and newspaper articles mentioning Vlada. But, hey, they are all Eastern European, you haven't heard of them, right? And, ofcourse, that means they are not worthy. For crying out loud, man, get a little more flexible, will you? I ask for detailed answer, as why are you people so stubborn about your rules, the article didn't stated anything bizarre, sick or offending? P.S. Since the article was in process of debate, and your "rules" state that the page in this process should remain intact for seven days, why has the page been deleted two days earlier? Shmeket (misfiled at Content review, moved by GRBerry

What magazines and newspapers? They aren't online? Why don't you get an article on the Wikipedia that is in the same language as the magazines? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in the reasoning here. While I myself know nothing of Vlada Frey, the fact that there isn't much online in English about him might actually make for a good reason to include him. Are we so narrow as to think that people are only interested in subjects from their own language groups or cultures? So long as references are cited, whether online or not and whether in English or not, and so long as the subject himself/itself is otherwise worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, an article should surely be permitted. As an example, I am myself hugely interested in Japanese music and culture, but speak hardly a word of Japanese. English Wikipedia thus is a major source for me, and I rely on contributors who are able to draw on Japanese sources to write good articles in English. Doesn't this make sense in our global, internationalist world? --Ishel99 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall men

List of tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus.

Note: For the sake of consistency, I am also nominating List of tall women for deletion review (the result of the AfD debate was a consensus keep).

The administrator's justification for the decision is that:

The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.

However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":

NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.

The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article).

At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men (per the suggestion by User:Penwhale, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page). Black Falcon 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has undergone an AfD three more times (as copied from the most recent AfD): Black Falcon 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - At the risk of rehashing my comments on the AFD, I do reject Proto's notion that there being "no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means" is a reason for deletion. The obvious consequences of that logic are distasteful, particularly the deletion of many valuable, high-quality lists simply because they cover a group which has no definitive parameters. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Closing admin made sound policy and guideline based conclusion, no real basis to overturn his call on it. Despite what is said, it appears that the main reason to overturn in !vote counting more than anything. Agent 86 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer - something I didn't note in the close, which perhaps I should have, is that reaching an agreed consensus on what "tall" means "through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article" would be just splendid. Is it therefore churlish to point out that the article had existed since October 11 2005 (over fifteen months) without managing to arrive upon an agreed consensus on what "tall" means, and no sign of it ever being attained? Proto::► 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was primarily due to fears of the list getting too lengthy. Also it included some on the other side who wanted "their tall guy" included for whatever reason so pushed for a lower standard. That "tall" exists, and can be measured to some degree, I don't think was the point. In retrospect I wish the higher standard of 201 centimetres, the standard used at the Italian one, had been kept as this is almost certainly in the highest percentile of human height in any society. As for another issue, it is incorrect that a variable physical commonality is arbitrary or verboten for lists. There is a Category:Lists of people by physical attribute and many things in Category:Lists of people with disabilities could also apply. In addition Tall Men are a subject of scholarly study. I concede that the disdain for lists is powerful so perhaps an article on Tall men or Tallest men would be better, but because of this deletion I'm not sure such an article can be created.--T. Anthony 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note I do stand by my closing judgement - the issue wasn't no original research (although an argument could be made for an arbvitrary cutoff point being just that, it wasn't a prevailing discussion in the AFD), it was Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - arbitrary and subjective lists are just that. Isn't that what the main thrust of the deletion arguments were about? Proto::► 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The nominator made a very strong case, and all the people who voted delete either also made a good case, or mentioned several policies. The people who voted keep didn't have much to say, some didn't say anything at all. Iced Kola(Mmm...) 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A great many of the keep votes were more well-reasoned than that. In addition there were several delete votes that were "delete per nom" or essentially said "it's stupid", but were not stricken. In addition we have several lists like List of buildings with 100 floors or more. Isn't "a 100 floors" also essentially arbitrary? If this had been called List of men over two metres tall would it have been more acceptable because it says it chose an arbitrary number?--T. Anthony 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What value is it to mention several policies if they are inapplicable? True, those who voted delete linked to more policies, but this means nothing by itself. In addition, those voting keep linked to policies such as WP:NOR (in that the article doesn't violate it) and WP:POINT and referenced other policies in various threads or comments. Black Falcon 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is disturbing that the AFDs for the "tall women" and "tall men" discussions reached contradictory conclusions even though they were run at about the same time. Nevertheless, I can find no fault with the reasoning put forth by the closer of this discussion. I must endorse the closure and continue to struggle to accept that Wikipedia is often inconsistent. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The tall women one was closed early, quite possibly incorrectly as the pattern of argument was not unanimous, through WP:SNOW. That discussion could easily be repopened - is that within the aegis of this DRV discussion? Proto::► 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by DRV nominator: I apologize for the lengthy DRV nomination and this lengthy comment, but there are two other points that I believe deserve consideration and were not explicitly mentioned in the AfD.
  1. Any relational adjective (such as tall, short, large, big, wide, deep, etc.) can be interpreted in different ways. The lower limit of such adjectives can be disputed, but this does not mean that they are hopelessly subjective. Following that logic, every list of the biggest, greatest, largest, longest, tallest, etc. should be deleted (e.g., every list noted in List of "largest" articles). The same logic applies for the opposite: smallest, shortest, cheapest, etc. Lists based on relational adjectives can be encyclopedic, even if they cannot be defined so as to be free of any controversy (to reject any cutoff point, even say 2.5 meters, approaches WP:POINT).
  2. Although I do understand the frustration of those who supported deletion that the article hasn't reached resolution so far, it seems like they are giving up on the article. The criticism of the subjectivity of relational adjectives is, as noted in the AfD, "a fruitless semantic exercise, inimical to the subjective nature of language itself". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Text of the GNU Free Documentation License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD)

The arguments for and against this redirect were laid out in the RfD discussion. Those arguments boil down to an assertion that this redirect meets criterion 4 of the "avoid deleting such redirects" section of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? Reviewing the discussion, I do not see any reasonable way that the discussion can be interpreted as having had consensus for deletion.
The closer added the comment that "Per Google, there are no links outside of Wikipedia to this redirect" and appears to have given it considerable weight in the decision. Had this comment been added during the discussion period, I would strongly have disputed it. Google is fundamentally unable to make such an assertion about inbound links. Google does not return hits based on the hidden html of a page. But even if you could run such a search, it would still miss any links that are 1) archived offline, 2) on academic or other pages excluded from spidering or 3) on internal websites which Google can't index. Rossami (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closing admin. This redirect meets criteria 5 of the deletion reasons of the page Rossami references. The objection that Rossami raised during the debate was the risk of breaking existing links. Despite Rossami's statement above, Google is able to detect links in the HTML of a page and has a specified search operator (see link: help) for that purpose. The link is not used outside of Wikipedia and RockMFR fixed all the Wikipedia links. I weighed the objections that Rossami raised and decided the risk was extremely low and did not overcome the standard practice of deleting cross-namespace redirects. If we are to accept Rossami's argument about the risk of archived, offline, non-spidered, & internal website links, then no redirect could ever be deleted. We will never be able to prove that a bookmark to a page does not exist. We can, however, extrapolate that if there are no public links, then the odds of significant private links are extremely, extremely small. Furthermore, I stand by "The text is original source material and, per WP:NOT, doesn't belong in article space or masquerading as an article." -- JLaTondre 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I misspoke above. I should have said that "Google does not reliably return hits based on the hidden html of a page." While it is theoretically feasible to search for a link, that is a highly fallible process. For example, I just attempted to use google to find links to several sites which I know to be linked from pages which I know to have been indexed. (Targets containing link: [1], [2]. Search: [3]) Google is returning no hits even though I am looking at the source code in another window and can see the link right there. I am unconvinced that this aspect of the google test is sufficiently reliable to conclude that there are no inbound links. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like http://www.queenrightcolonies.com is a page without any content. I'm not sure that represents a valid example as it's possible Google may discard it. I'm willing to concede, though, that any Google search (text, link, or otherwise) is not going to be perfect. I do believe, however, that a lack of results gives a pretty good indication of somethings relative use. -- JLaTondre 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The link was a cross space redirect to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not allow cross space redirects for very good reasons. If we have this as a redirect, it is (as JLaTondre states) masquerading as an article. Such a text dump is not an encyclopaedic article. A link from GNU Free Documentation License might be appropriate. Proto::► 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha_Kappa_Nu

Alpha_Kappa_Nu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

Relatively new evidence found and more sources to detail important organization in history. FrozenApe 09:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from book Black Greek 101: http://books.google.com/books?id=kI4_svFQOHYC&pg=RA1-PA22&lpg=RA1-PA22&vq=alpha+kappa+nu&dq=black+greek+101&sig=182O7wqR7e1FStJQ-0otnxek3q8 books.google.com]
page 22

books.google.com page 137 of African American Fraternities and Sororities: books.google.com

as well as listed in The history of kappa alpha psi by William Crump

It is spoken about here on the Alpha Phi Alpha article, which is a featured article of Wikipedia. Alpha_Phi_Alpha#Black_college_greek_movement

AKN is spoken about here [4]
A photo and short bio is given here [5]
city paper online mentions the fraternity [6]
Another article about the organization is discussed here. [7]

Please be aware that this article may attacks due to it's placement in history. Please read evidence. Also looking to undelete history of article for research. 09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilobbying

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

Wikilobbying is a practice which has been known to occur, and while the word may be relatively unknown, it is at least debatable whether it is deserving of its own entry. To summarily delete it as it was without allowing any time for discussion seems very arbitrary. At the very least, it should've been allowed some time for discussion before being deleted. TV4Fun 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion truthyjunk. JuJube 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This may have come from Colbert and I understand that he isn't a great friend of Wikipedia and that administrators have likely been very busy tonight because of him and will likely be very busy in the next few days because of him. But Wikilobbying is a real practice, from notable individuals brushing up their own articles to Microsoft paying people to make them look better. It's a remarkably unusual type of information lobbying because people who look up information get it from Wikipedia--even if it was Joe Shmoe pushing position x for company y who wrote the informaiton that they're getting. Colbert may have caused a stir with naming this, but the practice exists and needs an article and Colbert has little to do with it, though he does a fair amount of Wikilobbying himself. TStein 10:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The contents were, successively, "here it is.", "first.", "Save the elephants!" and "Save the elephants! YEA!". Of course it was correct to delete these articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — Neologism. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — Let's wait until this actually makes news like truthiness did. Not everything Colbert says is magic. Wikiality never became popular and had hardly any media presence. This word may follow the same path to oblivion. If this does become popular, there can always be another deletion review. Gdo01 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - per WP:NEO dposse 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse valid deletions under criteria G1-3. If someone wants to create an actual article in their userspace, we can discuss unsalting so that it can be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable at AfD, but since we're discussing the deleted article not the neologism itself, that's not necessary yet. Eluchil404 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse deletion per previous endorsement arguments. Absolutely no evidence this "word" is notable, and just because Stephen Colbert says it's a word does not make it so. --Coredesat 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I personally feel that it should be included on the Show's page, unless there are enough examples and discussion to warrant a full, fleshed-out page, and not just another stub. However, the term should not be ignored. Perhaps something like "On the 29 January 2007 show, Colbert invented the term Wikilobbying which he defined as 'The act of paying people to edit Wikipedia in order to be more favorable for their cause'." That kind of thing.須藤 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as per user:Gdo01. -- Zanimum 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Non-notable neologism not made any more notable by Colbert's antics. No evidence of use of the word elsewhere, or that the practice is widespread. WJBscribe 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now. At this point this is patent nonsense at worst, unverifiable original research at best. If and when there's a substantial body of verifiable secondary literature (beyond the Blog Of The Day), this issue can be revisited. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse User:Suto and User:Gdo01 have the right idea; mention it on the show's article, recreate if this ever makes national headlines. Veinor (talk to me) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse. This was closed correctly. Besides, Stephen Colbert makes up words almost every week at this point. With the exception of truthiness, they've all proved non-notable outside of the very narrow context of the Report. Even if Wikipedia was a crystal ball, (which it isn't) precident would not be on this article's side. -- Bailey(talk) 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Whether we like it or not, this is now a legitimate term. It should be closely monitored; but it must be allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.138.213 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn I believe this is a real term and should not be deleted, I don't see how creating a page for a real term is vandalism. If anything, lock the page to new and anonymous users.Preeeemo 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WJD. --Gwern (contribs) 19:52 30 January 2007 (GMT)
  • Overturn and protect. This term, although edited by childish individuals, deserves its wiki page as mush as any other page here. Rsween7 User has no edits outside of this discussion. AecisBrievenbus 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Endorse deletion, process was followed appropriately, given that the topic is just a neologism. No valid reason for overturning was given by the nominator nor by the four Overturn !votes so far. Being "a real term", "a legitimate term" is no claim to belonging in Wikipedia. At most, these are arguments for inclusion in Wiktionary; and multiple independent reliable sources would be needed for the Wiktionary editors to consider it. No new sources have been suggested beyond those considered in the AfD. Barno 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, and a big welcome to Wikipedia! for all those who wish to see this kept. Proto::► 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion. As Jitse Niesen points out, there have been no substantive versions of this page. The deleted versions were all clear vandalism or user tests. {{Deletedpage}} protection seems a bit premature but based on the definitions offered above I believe that if the page were created in good faith, it would fail an AFD discussion as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious endorse. The article never contained any content about Wikilobbying, so nothing about Wikilobbying was deleted. The article only ever contained nonsense, and nonsense can obviously be speedied. AecisBrievenbus 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn protection. While it is true that in the few seconds before the page was protected, no one had yet put up any actual content, that does not mean that given a chance, other editors would not have put up a meaningful definition. Granted, the page may have warranted speedy deletion, but protecting it from being recreated seems rather unfair. In so doing you have prevented any debate on the topic by ensuring no one could put up any content which might at least warrant some discussion before deleting it. TV4Fun 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's always the case with protection. I see no reason why this particular article is any different from all the other protected articles. You are free to write an article in your userspace, at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying, and come back here when you feel that it's good enough to be in an article. Until then there's no reason to unprotect this article. AecisBrievenbus 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS. I have struck your bolded !vote, since your nom already counts as a vote. AecisBrievenbus 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn the protection of the page It's the truth. Wikilobbying is now and will continue to be a widely used and legitimate term. This is the true nature of language; words are created, and words are forgotten and lost. Languages evolve and die, dialects come from out of nowhere. Language is constantly in a state of flux and is constantly updated as Wikipedia should be, considering how many people access and use it, and how much it deals with terminology among other things. Overturning the protection of this page would be giving people a chance to explore and define a new term that has significant meaning. Nothing will be hurt by this, it's just provision of information. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) User has very few edits outside of this discussion. AecisBrievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the beautiful prose. A small note: nothing comes out of nowhere, not even dialects. But on-topic again: if you are confident that a worthwhile article can be written about the subject, you are free to do so in your userspace and come back here when you're confident that it is encyclopedic. AecisBrievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, you know what I meant. Yeah, I'll work on it, but one of the points in the beautiful prose was that people need to contribute to the meaning of the term, thus the whole point and beauty of using an open source tool in the first place. That's the whole reason why people are fighting for this, that's the whole reason why people want to use Wikipedia, that's the whole reason why people come here and don't just use Encarta. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the point. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable, and as I said, Stephen Colbert using this word in his show does not make it a word, nor does it make the word appear in a dictionary (which Wikipedia also is not). --Coredesat 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for "Overturners": What this discussion any different from this one? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, protologism. -- Vary | Talk 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Yes, I'd say this discussion is different, this term carries quite a bit of significance and should really be considered. I agree with Igtgtfgtgmc 100%, great argument and every point is valid. Wikipedia says it's open source, but it's more like some parents taking a bunch of kids to a park and not letting them leave the sandbox. Js8669 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) User's first contribution. AecisBrievenbus 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia's content is totally free: you can reprint it anywhere you'd like, whether it's modified or intact, without paying a royalty. You can even sell it if you want to. This is not the same as saying anyone can do anything they want on this particular website, which does in fact have rules, despite offering users a relatively large degree of freedom. See the difference? To the new users involved in this discussion, I recommend checking out What Wikipedia is Not, which will get you caught up pretty quickly on what Wikipedia aims to cover and what's outside of our scope. If you want a place to define terms which have not yet caught on, you can try Uncyclopedia, Urbandictionary, or even the Colbert-themed Wikiality.com. -- Bailey(talk) 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chris thompson(business)

Chris thompson(business) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

this is a bio relating to the company cmtd. this article is an essential part of that other page Ccthompson

Flashes Before Your Eyes

Flashes Before Your Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted and locked because no verifiable info was available - that info has now become available so the article may be created: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=012907_17. -- Wikipedical 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if there's a valid speedy in the bunch, especially since the first was for "crystal ball." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. I'd like to think this has no chance of passing an AfD, even with that dinky little source, but we have far too many people who are willing to keep one sentence stubs because there will be more sources later. -Amark moo! 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Unsalt but not Overturn' - point of deletion and protection is to hold the article (which had been repeatedly deleted) until article is verifiable per the policy;no need for the beauraucracy of a deletion review once information has come to light. Article has been unprotected and is ready for creation --Robdurbar 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, requiring a review for an article that was deleted (justifiably) because it was about a future event with no verifiable info seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. The reason for deletion has gone away, should be a no brainer. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, allow creation. Don't immediately send it to AFD with a mindless 'procedural nomination'. Give the creators some chance to create the article, and then its existence can be assessed (through AFD, if necessary). A quick look at newly available sources suggests that it would survive an AFD discussion now, as long as the article uses the available references. Proto::► 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The first speedy-deletion (on 31 Dec 06) was in error. Crystal-ballery is not a speedy-deletion criterion. The second speedy (15 Jan) was also in error. The "re-post" criterion may not be used when the only prior deletions were speedy or prod. I see that a stub has now been created in place of the {{deletedpage}} notice. The stub does still appear to fall afoul of WP:NOT. List to AFD. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Nine Angles

Order of Nine Angles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Overturn please? The vote count was in favour of keep (4-2 with 1 other person commenting), and the AfD was started by a sockpuppet. Notability is not an issue as there are several third-party references to ONA, and the article itself had references at the bottom of the article (check the Wayback Machine) - although the article was, perhaps, not very thoroughly referenced. This sockpuppet seems to have been used to delete a few articles similar to the ONA article, perhaps for religious reasons.

72.12.133.163 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I mean, please overturn the deletion. Or, undelete article, reinstate article, etc.; sorry, I'm new to this process. The point is, it was a vote to keep, but the article got deleted anyway.72.12.133.163 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Caution over sources The first two books listed in the google books search above are self-published/vanity press works: [8] (Lulu.com) [9] (Xlibris). The third book is from a reputable publisher, but only has a couple of passing mentions of the group. Checking other books listed too. Bwithh 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend overturnrelist overturn and stubify If the deleted version was like the Answers mirrored version, it would seem to be a gross violation of WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX (adding a bibliography at the end of an article is often a misleading and flimsy figleaf for a mass of unsourced content). However, there seem to be at least some ok sources available. If the decision is overturned and article is kept, recommend stubification in order to purge the OR/SOAPBOX material and the reliance on an unreliable website (Yes, a book from "Thormynd Press" by Anton Long is referenced to support the website - but a google for "Thormynd Press" suggests that it is a small underground publisher dedicated to texts promoting Satanism and Neo-Nazism which are not generally available to the public e.g.[10][11][12]. The reliability of this source and Anton Long is questionable at best). Bwithh 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your attention. The answers.com page is indeed a mirror of the ONA article that was here, and I'm amazed it was that long. Please note, the vote was 4-2 against deletion, and the instigating comment was from a sockpuppet, yet the article was deleted. That's my point in all this. As for WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX, I have only glossed over the content right now, but the old article does actually summarize some points from the ONA writings - but also, yes, has large sections worthy of snippage. To me, that would suggest editing was required and not deletion via sockpuppet. Maybe 25% of the original article was good. 72.12.133.163 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, debate about whether or not sources are good should occur at AfD, not here. It really should have been relisted in the first place instead of closed. -Amark moo! 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agree about relisting (changing vote). Disagree strongly about discussion about source quality evaluation not taking place at DRV - yes DRV is primarily about process (and introduction of new sources which should be evaluated too), but considering sources already introduced is an integral but often undervalued part of the process. Not considering sources here suggests decisions or endorsed should be overturned on the basis of "look, the article has so many in-line references (but don't look at them)", "there are a bunch of google hits (but don't look at them)", "there's a nicely typed bibliography (but don't look at the books listed)" etc. Arguments about encyclopedic notability and interpretation of guidelines, I agree, should be left to afd. Whether afds under review considered sources reasonably and whether sources are substantive and reliable is a valid topic for discussion here. Bwithh 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On third thought, going back to my original !vote Bwithh 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_30&oldid=104483321"