Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 30

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

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) where the term is prominently displayed and defined in the 1912 Party Platform written by Theodore Roosevelt.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a challenge of the redirect deletion, not the article deletion we discussed before. Overturn. Attack page? For a party disbanded in 1916?? No applicable speedy criterion. ~ trialsanderrors 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ  01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and List on RfD per Anþony, speedy was not the way to go on this one but a listing on RfD is warranted. Arkyan • (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the G4 speedy-deletion and list to RFD. A redirect is not substantially identical to an article. Do not undelete all the properly deleted versions of the page. I do share Anþony's suspicion that this is unlikely to survive scrutiny, though. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wrongly deleted by User:Avraham. Page was recreated as Redirect to Dixie Mafia where the terms are used interchangeably in sources cited.--MBHiii 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, speedy close this was just on AfD a few days ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator is challenging the deletion of this being used the redirect to Dixie Mafia and not the original article that was AFDed. --70.48.174.169 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete just the redirect. Clearly not a valid G4 deletion, since the redirect was never deleted at RFD and G4 only applies to recreations of stuff deleted at xFD. Possibly send to RFD though. --W.marsh 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at RfD - Not a G4 deletion, but the redirect should probably be deleted after appropriate discussion. – Þ  01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and List on RfD per Anþony, speedy was not the way to go on this one but a listing on RfD is warranted. Arkyan • (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page was deleted using PRod:non-notable footballer according to WP:BIO, but the player although not playing for the senior national team, but still playing top level for Malta, although Maltese football may be at semi-professional level. And there is discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players on going.

I put this not Deletion review, because it does not proper process of AFD to delete it under discussion. Per previous Afd results, please for top level football already notable. Ongoing discussion of Notability discussion should not became a reason of Current deletion. Here the player DOB and match record as of 2005-2006 season. [1][2] -- Matthew_hk tc 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty underwear fetish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted as being non-notable, when it is clearly notable. If Dearcupid.org is not a reliable 3rd-person 3rd-party source, then what else is?? Out-of-process deletion. Kingshockaz 2000 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse valid AfD, with a clear and unmistakable consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BattleMaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|1st AfD | 2nd AfD)

I started to write an entirely new article in accordance with all Wikipedia requirements. Please unlock the page so I could publish it. The page has already its versions in NL and PL wikipedias, only on EN is locked. Merewyn 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per the second AfD, found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), unless the reliable sources that were asked for are provided. The fact that the article is on NL and PL is irrelevant; the various Wikipedia's are independent and have separate criteria for inclusion. If you think you can address the issues that were raised in the second AfD, I suggest that the best thing to do is write the article in userspace, and then bring it here for consideration. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per second AfD. You can prepare a version of the article that satisfies notability on your user subpage. But until that is done the AfD consensus was clearly to delete and should not be reversed without addressing the problem of sources. Resurgent insurgent 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD consensus was very clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Controversy Nobody yet answered my Question of Reliability for the games, so I repeat it here again and again. HOW can you check the reliable sources for a GAME? If by Google hits like it was required in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination), then in fact it is VERY UNFAIR, the games you must pay for will always win - because of large amount of advertisement hits. Freeware will be always discriminated this way. Give the fair and clear rules for your requirements and stop demanding to cite the shop catalogues as reliable sources. Merewyn 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Google hits are not a criterion for article inclusion. Non-trivial coverage by independent fact-checked sources are what qualifies a game topic for inclusion. The catalog is not independent, and advertisements are not non-trivial coverage. If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so, then you should add those to a draft and bring it here or to the AfD's closing admin. If you can't find such sources to cite, then the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia's core policies; see WP:ATT. Yes, that means freeware is less likely to get articles because it's less likely to get covered by anything except fan what-I-like websites. But most freeware is just not noted enough for any encyclopedia; at least WP gives it the same objective criteria that it must meet as commercial software must meet. You misunderstand the requirements, which is why you misunderstand the fairness. See the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. Barno 13:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-Comment How should I state it more clearly? Your "independent" sources write about the commercial games because this is what the PR is paid for - to get as much attention on your product as possible, while nobody is interested in selling the Freeware. Therefore, judging by the amount of advertisements is a measure of NOTHING but the financial resources of the producers.
      Why is BattleMaster so special? This game started 1 January 2000, exists continuously for SEVEN years now, which makes BattleMaster one of the oldest and developing of the BBMMORPG games. The major difference between BattleMaster and many other games is that one cannot win BattleMaster. Game mechanics and playing worlds are deliberately designed to make total domination impossible. As a result, some player realms have existed since the beginning of the game (7 real years) while other realms have been formed and destroyed. Since all realms are controlled by players, the game has its own developing history [3] as lived and written by all the players, the players that make friends not only in the game but in real life too, visiting each other even across the world. Please unlock this page and allow to write the article about it all. Merewyn 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please clarify:"If you can show that some game magazines (not from the same publisher as the game) have given BattleMaster feature coverage, or that some mainstream newspapers and magazines and TV shows have done so..." So an online game is only worthy to wikipedia if you convince enough media sources to cover it? Is that the only action available? What qualifies as acceptable media? JoetheLesser 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — JoetheLesser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment While I can certainly see the need for some notability metric with regard to online games, given the number of fly-by-night games played by less than a hundred people out there, I really have to agree to some extent with Merewyn here. If the criteria for free browser-based games are the same as those for off-the-shelf commercial games, you will never be able to include any, because, as the others have said, a free game without any advertisements will not be able to buy the publicity that games produced by the likes of EA, Bllizzard, and Sony can. Perhaps (though I admit to knowing nothing about the logistics involved) a new subcategory needs to be developed for such games, with criteria that do not depend upon mainstream, commercial coverage? --Dan Aris 22:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — Danaris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Support of the idea of subcategory for the freeware games. A freeware game (= no ads) that exists constantly 7 years and have over 1200 users playing each day [4] is worth noticing as a phenomenon. Merewyn 10:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Fair" is not the issue. We're not here to be fair! A large advertising budget gets your product noticed, and being noticed is the first step towards becoming notable. There are other routes to notability, but that's a quick and generally reliable one, like it or not. We're not here to fix the world's injustices—we're here to document some of its notable features. Xtifr _tälk 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps, then, absent a category that takes into account the nature of such a game, you could suggest some ways that those of us who play & like the game could seek to spread knowledge of it, and make it more notable? We want it to be more widely known--it's just we don't have bags of money, and we don't have any knowledge of the field. What sorts of mentions would be possible for such a game to get, that would be considered "notable"? --Dan Aris 15:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redeletion. The reposted version still failed to provide any evidence of independent sources (the core concern of the AFD discussion). Without independent sources, anything we write would either be of suspect neutrality or original research. Encyclopedias are by definition tertiary sources. By the way, advertising has nothing to do with it because advertising also fails our neutrality and independence standards. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So, you all mean that I should start the Wikipedia article by buying enough of advertisments in newspapers?? The way to measure the notability should be really rediscussed, I proposed to start here: Reliable Sources for a game? Or advertisement catalogue instead of encyclopedia. Merewyn 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Advertisements are not independent reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we don't "all" mean that advertisements help get software a Wikipedia page. Just the opposite: see WP:SOFTWARE: "media reprints of press releases" are explicitly excluded, catalogue listings are explicitly excluded. None of the things you described about the game are included as valid reasons for it to have an article. If some reliable sources carried articles saying the same things that you said, that would give us strong objective reasons to keep a BattleMaster article. If you think these criteria really should be different for freeware games, you're right to discuss that on the notability talk page, but wrong to insist we change it in this deletion review. You'll probably find lots of game fans who will support such a policy change, but if the guidelines are changed in a way that is contradictory to Wikipedia's core policies, they will be rejected and reverted by the broader community of editors. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to indulge the fans of every game that gets a little more popular than thousands of other games without getting mainstream coverage. Barno 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it's this simple: you need sources. Until someone has written about the game, we don't have sources. Get it reviewed, or written up, or something, then we can base an article on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about This?: External review fitting your requirements.

• Review at gameogre.com
• Featured Online GAME OF THE WEEK at gameogre.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merewyn (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How about the sources I gave above? I have the sources for the article, so accordingly to your requirements this article should be restored. Please. Merewyn 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bunch of reviews contributed by fans to a website open to anyone's contributions without any kind of editorial supervision. They don't count as sources for us any more than we could cite amazon product reviews. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides which sources count and which not? Why the sources mentionned above cannot count for BattleMaster while in the same time the Amazon or other eBay reviews do count for other games like e.g. Anarchy Online? Merewyn 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The log for this image indicates that it was taken by photographer Jeramey Jannene (a.k.a. User:Grassferry49, a.k.a. compujeramey on flickr), yet it was deleted as "no copyright tag". According to the url in the upload log, it is cropped from http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/100075920 which uses the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. If this is true, it should be restored and tagged as {{cc-by-2.0}}. — CharlotteWebb 05:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I uploaded the full picture onto Commons and restored this one here. This isn't really a DRV topic. ~ trialsanderrors 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Voting was fairly even, but a WikiProject stacked up votes of keep based on Ownership, resulting in a decision of "no consensus" by The wub. I am asserting that the closing admin should have based the decision on the strength of the arguments rather than on what appears to be simple vote count. Discussion was here. I am seeking an action of overturn and delete. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. I tend to agree with AM. The arguments to deletion boil down to guidelines on overcategorization, whereas the the arguments to keep boil down to WP:OWNership ("We at WP:GAA have organise our category very well", "It's a silly nom by someone who doesn't understand the subject", "Totally ridiculous suggestion", "we should respect the GAA Project as they know the topic better"). Just because there's a Wikiproject doesn't mean other people (not to mention standards) don't get a say in this. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An unfair characterisation of the objections, see below. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I should have said that several of the arguments to keep boil down et cetera. >Radiant< 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gross over-categorisation, bizarre result. Overturn and delete.--Doc^g 10:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, creating a Wikiproject does not give carte blanche to ignore general Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And in my experience, the more specific and narrow the focus of a Wikiproject, the more fannish and less reliable its opinions (in general—there are notable exceptions). If the arguments had been based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games guidelines, I would probably have endorsed the decision, but as it is...no. (Of course, if the Sports and games workgroup guidelines were being followed, I suspect this would have never made it to DR.) Xtifr _tälk 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Neutral because of closer's comments below. I'm still uncomfortable with the excessive deference shown to a minor Wikiproject, but overall, I find it too close too call. I think lists would be a better choice, but I wasn't in the CfD. Xtifr _tälk 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment. Though some of the objections were unreasonable and implied ownership by the WikiProject, by no means all of them were. Some concerns I thought reasonable were raised including:
  • By their nature few players would end up in many of the categories. Peter Canavan has the most with six categories, few players would approach this and this hardly compares (as one delete !voter did) with Babe Ruth previously having over 100 categories.
  • Upmerging would result in large unwieldy categories.
  • The previous baseball discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Subcategories of Category:National League All-Stars was partially based on the fact that Articles were being written about each All-Star game. Such articles were not being written in this case.
• Given the arguments presented on both sides I did not feel sufficient consensus had been reached. the wub "?!" 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Wub's expanded comments. Tim! 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure Wub's expanded closing comments show that this decision was within admin discretion. Xoloz 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was an established article before it was speedy deleted as WP:CSD A7. The article did not meet this criterion since it asserted the notability of the company. In fact, MarchFirst got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise, and is a good example of a company which failed during the .com bust. See [5] e.g. While the article was far from comprehensive, it was not a speedy candidate nor should it be deleted via AfD. Rhobite 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the only part of the article that could be considered an assertion of notability was the statement that it was a company that failed during the dotcom bust. The article didn't even state what the company did... not that that's necessarily unusual for a dotcom, but it seems a little poor for an encyclopaedia article. --bainer (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own deletion. Looking at the "purpose" box on this page: "where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question", of course I haven't been approached regarding the concerns on this. Define "established" being here a long time doesn't mean it meets out standards, and doesn't afford a free pass. You say it asserted the notability, can you please tell me what that assertion was, per Bainer the being a failed dotcom isn't notability, there were 1000 upon 1000 of them. I'm sure many of them are "good examples" of failed businesses. "got a significant amount of press upon its founding and its demise" pity none of it is reference in the article then. --pgk 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't see that part - I should have consulted with you first. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – Its name comes from the March 2000 merger of US Web/CKS and Whittman-Hart is a clear claim to notability. yeah next time check with the deleting admin first, but even if you've never heard of marchFIRST (dumbest capitalization ever?) you just need to click through to USWeb. ~ trialsanderrors 06:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that makes things any clearer. Maybe it's just my pedantic reading of the wording but it doesn't say the company is a result of a merger, just the name (which could mean anything a break away of the original founders etc. though I admitedly didn't look that far). Whitman-Hart seems to lack sourcing so probably in it's current form fails WP:CORP, but being a spin off of even a notable company doesn't immediately confer notability. To add to the confusion of this supposed merger followed by bankruptcy yet the Whitman-Hart article suggests, Whitman-Hart is still a going concern which suggests there was no merger. Maybe I'm missing something but the original article does nothing to enlighten me. My reaction is still endorse the deletion, though I'll happliy restore to someones userspace if they want to bash it into better shape. --pgk 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion - marchFIRST was an Internet company, part of the dot-com boom of the 1990s that eventually failed and was sold is hardly a claim to notability - but no prejudice against a better article, and you can have this one back to start from if you like. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that be a GFDL issue? The intro to the old article wasn't good, but the timeline was fine assuming references can be found. Rhobite 12:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So undelete the history once there's another article in place. Problem solved. —Cryptic 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no claims of notability as written initially. Resurgent insurgent 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that were the criterion, then we should remove the rule about speedy deletion of recreated articles after they've been deleted, because if whoever writes it first doesn't get it right for whatever reason, the encyclopedia loses. Kinda silly... Carlossuarez46 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) And also remove "Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." from the purpose box above to conform to the apparent practice. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete looks like it certainly was notable at some point, if only briefly. I found a Cnet story saying it cut 1,700 jobs at once, which at the time was 30% of its workforce, meaning that it emplyed over 5,000 people! That was not a small company by any means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company was certainly notable. IT wasn't Enron, but in business circles it was certainly among the more spectacular collapses, in particlualr because the company had just previously acquired Mitchell Madison. What this is here is simply the haggling over whether notability was asserted in the article. ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How would an undelete be better than adding the article content into one of the other two related articles? IMHO that would seem to be the best thing to do, whether or not this article is undeleted. -- llywrch 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD. The company got a fair amount of press in its day and a well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written before it was inappropriately speedied). But it was a relatively short-lived company and I don't generally agree that "notability is permanent" so this should be tested against the community consensus in a full discussion. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'well-sourced article could be written (and in fact, was written' - did you look at the article? It has three links, one returns a "service unavailable" message. The other two are the companies this company may have been merged from (though I've still to understand how the companies merged, went bankrupt but the original companies are still currently trading...) neither mentions this at the destination of the link, they are generic front pages. Is this your idea of well-sourced?--pgk 08:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as above, is anyone actually willing to put some effort into tracking down some sources and bashing this into some sort of shape? I've already said I'll restore it into userspace for someone to do just that... pgk 08:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted some of the 905 Newsbank articles on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 18:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know if the following links count as reliable sources, but here you go: [www.varbusiness.com/sections/news/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=18814404], [www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,59579,00.html], [www.crn.com/it-channel/18818591], [www.digitalsolid.com/2007/03/01/marchfirst-second-monday-and-the-scarcity-of-good-domain-names/] and [www.forrester.com/go?docid=23949]
  I am not sure if these are reliable sources, but they could be useful. Opinions are welcome. --SunStar Net ^talk 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those are those free IT trade magazines. I consider them a solid middle ground as far as reliability goes: They're generally quite factual and certainly quite a few steps above blogs and things, but since they're loath to report any negative information I don't consider them in the same line as the New York Times and such. I'd certainly consider them reliable enough for non-controversial information in an article. With so much coverage, I'd be absolutely astonished if MarchFIRST can't be turned into a decent and well-referenced article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per the current version of WP:CORP. All publicly traded companies in the US will be subject of multiple secondary sources; each must report quarterly results and file them publicly with the government (called form 10-Q or 10-K for the 4th fiscal quarter). There are dozens of organizations that collect, collate, and report on everything that gets filed: CNN finance, Yahoo finance, and many others are available free online. Many more are available by subscription such as Forbes, Fortune, and ValueLine. So, while it is not impossible that online content from a while back has been removed by these guys, the hard copies are still out there of these periodicals. A slew of information about the company can be found at [[6]], and a cursory search indicates that some stuff remains online from that period , see forbes, another mention by forbes, pr newswire, some lawfirm yakking about the collapse. I would suppose that the SEC, Forbes magazine are a couple of relatively reliable sources, so what's the problem? Carlossuarez46 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without disagreeing with Carlossuarez46's specific findings in this case, I have to note that the broad interpretation of WP:CORP he/she opened with (that all publicly traded US companies can be assumed to be notable) is not the generally accepted interpretation. See WP:CORP's Talk page for more. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy at WP:CORP says notability can be established by write-ups found in multiple independent sources. It is inconceivable that any US public company cannot meet that, due to the extensive number of publications devoted to investing in stocks and bonds of companies (regardless of whatever the company actually does or produces, which will probably have a slew of trade or industry publications mentioning the company or its products) and US governmental requirements for reporting which generates thousands of pages of sourcing for articles. Although some people don't like the implication of the loosened WP:CORP, it's hard to gainsay its consequence. Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't AFD, the article was deleted by criteria A7 no assertion of notability. It is the article which is deleted, not the subject. Deletion isn't saying there is no way we can have an article on the subject, not that they actually are non-notable. What it is saying that someone without any knowledge of the subject on viewing the article has no clue as to why we have the article. The article was awful, as persistantly offered above I'll happily restore it if someone wants to knock it into better shape. No one has taken me up on that yet, so we seem to have the situation we are trying to overturn something not based on the basis of deletion, but leaving it in the same state it could be deleted again on the same speedy criteria. --pgk 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But saying that it ought to remain deleted means you must believe that whatever was there cannot be the basis of an article. Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable (so in effect deleting the subject). Carlossuarez46 07:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is not asking you if you think it should remain deleted as such, nor is it asking you if the material currently in existance could be used to build a valid article. It is asking did the process of deletion work as it should, did the article as it stood meet the most basic standards required of wikipedia articles, the basic drive towards quality over quantity should tell us keeping stuff which falls far short of the basic standards by a long way hoping that someone, maybe some day will make it acceptable is a bad idea. "Because recreation of that deleted material is speedy deletable" - no it isn't, the speedy criteria G4 does not apply to material speedy deleted. If you merely recreated a duplicate the original then the original speedy criteria would stand and could be reapplied, if on the other hand you addressed the issues of the speedy deletion (in this case non-assertion of notability) then the original speedy criteria wouldn't stand, G4 certainly couldn't be applied. The article has other issues which need to be addressed (lack of sourcing for example), but those aren't speedy criteria. --pgk 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And this is also the frustration of the requester here not discussing this with the deleting admin (me) first. The basic issues could have been addressed, the article would probably have been restored days ago and we'd have a better article as a result (not necessarily a perfect article) instead we have this drawn out discussion which really fails to address the fundamentals. The time we've all invested here (myself included) could have been used to a net positive effect in terms of article quality --pgk 09:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, old article is decent source to build off of and sources show it can be done.. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Night Gyr. Clear media attention, satisfying WP:WEB. Don't care if it's AFD'ed. I don't think that a draconian interpretation of "did not assert notability" satisfies the spirit of A7, for a company which is clearly notable anyway. Patstuart^talk·edits 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books

This MfD was a mass nomination of user subpages used by some users to collect other users' signatures. The list in the MfD was almost certainly non-exhaustive. It was closed by User:IronGargoyle as, to quote the important bit:

Keep pages from active participants (most, I would suggest any with contributions outside userspace) and Delete pages from completely non-active participants.

Gargoyle became unable to enact the close and made this post (again, selectively quoted):

I would suggest that any user with fewer than 100 mainspace edits would have their autograph book on the one-week bubble to avoid any ambiguity.

While this attempt at compromise is laudable, it is in my opinion unworkable. As I said at WP:ANI, the 100-edit barrier creates a 'reward' for editcountitis, which we absolutely do not want. It may encourage useless edits so that the user can get the reward book, or even so that they can get it back after it was deleted. If any admin tried to enforce the close they would probably find themselves in complicated conflict (what happens if the page is deleted, the editor then makes 100 useless articlespace edits, and demands it back?) with good-faith editors over something that really isn't worth it. I don't necessarily approve of these signature books but I definitely don't think that admins should be getting into conflict trying to enforce this unenforcable close, which is essentially a declaration of policy.

Although it might seem an exercise in pointlessness to overturn a close where, because the admin left before enacting the close, hardly anything has actually happened (all but two of the links on the list are still blue), someone asked on WP:ANI if anyone was going to enforce this. Technically if the closing admin doesn't enforce a close, other admins should (see also CSD General-4) so we can't just forget about it. So this close should be overturned and considered as a 'no consensus'. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and either relist individually or delete them all. I agree with Samuel Blanning that the way this MfD was closed is unworkable. I don't agree with the no consensus interpretation, although I wouldn't come here arguing against it had it been closed that way in the first place. What I think correctly resolves the issue Samuel Blanning raises above is to individually list each of the autograph books so that each one can be considered in the context of the contributions the user has made to the project. The only conceivable reason that any of these should be kept is under the assumption that they fall under the main purpose statement at WP:USER:

  Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia.

  While whether the autograph pages serve this purpose can be debated (and was extensively in the MfD) individually for each autograph page to see if that page is indeed facilitating communication among participants. However, since this is really a lot of bother, I'd be equally fine with overturn and delete all. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close as "no consensus, default to keep" - MfD closures don't dictate policy. As Sam Blanning eloquently pointed out, enforcing an arbitrary edit count requirement is a ridiculous and unjustifiable chore. There was no clear consensus established in this debate, but it is worth noting that the sum of time, effort, and ill-will expended by editors in the MfD far exceeded any potential loss of productivity that not interfering with these signature books might have caused. Let's take a lesson from last year's userbox affair and discourage divisive campaigns against the friendly banality of otherwise productive contributors. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with all speed The compromise is laudable, but unworkable, so get rid of them all. They dont deal with encyclopedic issues, they dont have any bearing on any wikiactions at all, and are a clear violation of WP:NOT. We aren't myspace people. And the notion that contributing more means you can break certain rules is just wrong. I have many, many edits over multiple calender years, doesn't mean policy should not be more lax on me now then when I had 15 edits. It's rediculous. -M^ask
• Turnip --Doc^g 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete the lot of them, including the turnip. Sig pages are pointless to a 'pedia, and a rule that you can have a sig page if you have >100 edits is equally pointless not to mention WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, but in any event do not relist. Actively harmful to the encyclopedia, in that they distract actual productive contributors into dealing with their inanity. —Cryptic 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no-consensus Relist clear cases for deletion per WP:NOT#Webspace (or even prod them). Agathoclea 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and use some common sense. Is the user here to have autograph books? Delete them and tell the user this is an encyclopedia. Is the user here to contribute? Let them have their silly autograph books, they don't hurt anyone. Yes, yes, the 5 minutes they spend on writing "~~~~" on such a page could be spent in creating another FA, but who are we kidding with this kind of logic? No one wants to write articles in an environment that screams "Don't you dare to have some fun!" at you. --Conti|✉ 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List in groups or individually as appropriate. (I think this = Endorse closure. DGG 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wholesale deletion will offend and/or sadden some good commentators. Wholesale keep encourages misuse of WP as a social site. Individualized consideration by the deleting administrator will take up a bunch of admin time. Individualized or group consideration on future MfDs will take more overall contributor time than signing the autographs does. So I don't think there's a good answer here. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial endorse: per Conti; admins are not robots: trust them to use a bit of common sense, and scrap the 100-edit criterion. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I agree with Conti above, but I'm not sure I'd also agree to the same conclusion. (Well, that is if I properly understand what Conti is endorsing. Thank God this is a discussion & not a vote.) If a Wikipedian has an account on Wikipedia just to collect autographs, I believe an Admin can delete the page, if that is the best solution. But I hope my fellow Admins would first try to convince the user to contribute to Wikipedia in a useful manner first. If the Wikipedian is otherwise a productive editor ... well, let her/him have their fun. -- llywrch 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dumbest nomination ever (I'm talking aboiut the MFD nomination, not this one). They're annoying and unencyclopedic, yes, but the ill will and massive process wanking that would inevitably follow from such a nomination is a hundred times worse. (Case in point: this DRV.) Seriously, people want to list them individually now? How many of those will end up back here? Just if you see an autograph book by an inactive user redirect it to the main user page and be done with it. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there's constant testing of the line between a Wikipedia user page and MySpace page. Anytime the line between appropriate and inappropriate discretion on user pages is tested, these same "it's not doing any harm" and "this discussion is taking more time" arguments are put forward. The problem is that unchecked, a certain portion of the users here would establish a MySpace community here. That's not to say that there isn't some validity to those complaints, but it's a cost that will have to be paid at some point if we're going to enforce any limits on user pages. —Doug Bell 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why anyone with a shred of common sense sticks to the battles that are actually worth fighting over. ~ trialsanderrors 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, the last thing Wikipedia needs to do is drive away more good contributors over silly non-issues like we did with the userbox wars. Pages from people with no contributions to the encyclopedia can be, and are, nominated for deletion at MFD. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete all per User:Radiant. --kingboyk 11:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete and don't relist per all other delete votes. I can't add anything new that anyone hasn't already said. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Undelete The article had previously been deleted and User:DrFrench wrongly thought it should be considered for speedy deletion again, whereas the article had been totally re-written from scratch and is a much better account of the actual subject. The arguments given on the talk page of the said article were not taken into account and I believe it was deleted by a biased admin whose opinion had clearly been for the removal if you read their opinions in Talk:Top_Gear_(current_format). Davesmith33 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AfD was unanimous, and its problems couldn't be solved just by rewriting. Why not toss it in as a sentence in Top Gear? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main Top Gear page as it is a relatively minor part of the show. It was too minor to be on the main page, yet too major not to have it's own article. Davesmith33 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Honestly! Top Gear Dog is a dog who appears on Top Gear. It's a one-joke joke. And it wasn't that funny either. Plus, it's a pretty useless dog... A short para in Top Gear is quite sufficient, unless and until the dog becomes a worldwide celebrity with his own dogography. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy and Andrew, you fail to take into account a consensus could not be reached to have it on the main Top Gear page as it is a relatively minor part of the show. It was too minor to be on the main page, yet too major not to have it's own article. Davesmith33 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the endless Wikiconundrum: what to do with cruft purged from the main article. However, it is a recurring theme in the show, so at least a sentence would be worth having. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that if the overwhelming consensus on the talk page was that Top Gear Dog is too extremely minor of a show element to be mentioned there, that's all the more reason it shouldn't be a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The TGD article was deleted orginally for lack of notability - being nothing more than a short-lived in joke. It was nominated for speedy deleteion on the same criteria. The general consensus of editors (that is every one except Davesmith33) on the main Top Gear article was that TGD deserved nothing more than a passing sentence - anything more was merely fancruft. The "If TGD is too minor a part of the show, then so is Jon Bentley" argument is merely WP:POINT. DrFrench 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "Too minor for Top Gear" and "Too major to not have its own article" is a direct contradiction. Chris cheese whine 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS2pcGAMER, you are contradicting yourself there - "While the rewrite was much improved and had some decent sources, it still failed to address the issue of TG Dog's lack of notability." But is Jon Bentley more "notable" than TGD? I'm sure more TG viewers know who TGD is, than Jon Bentley. Davesmith33 09:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bentley has no relevance to this debate. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted) but it probably would make sense to post a redirect in order to prevent the page from further recreations. Rossami (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I figured that it should be noted that Top Gear Dog now redirects to Top Gear (current format). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]