Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7

Haifa Linux Club – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A vfd was conducted on the club in October 2006 due to the site being down and no recent activity. The reason for this was the fact the city of Haifa was under attack in the 2006 Lebanon War, combined with technical trouble on the club's main server which led to its temporary suspension. The club is now active again, and is still the oldest and most regarded linux club/user group in Israel. All the reasons listed in Talk:Haifa Linux Club/deletion are still valid today. Please consider undeleting.

Also note that the club has resumed operation less than a week after the deletion [1], and has been operating continuously ever since. epsalon (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, WP:DRV is for contesting the improper closure of an AfD or similar, whereas you seem to be advocating the restoration of the page under new circumstances. Feel free to recreate the article (bearing into mind WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V), but this is not the venue to ask for its restoration.
As an aside, an administrator might be willing to copy the original page content to your userspace to allow you to incorporate some of it into a new article, but that's beyond my purview. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The original article was fine as-is (of course it can be improved on). The reason of deletion was strictly notability, which was due to a temporary failure of the website (and lack of meetings) due to a then ongoing war. epsalon (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Only one commentor made any comments on the site having been down, and that was only in passing. The deletion was due to notability, not site availability. If you want to create a new version in your user space with reliable sources to indicate the club's notability, then go ahead. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I ask for the deleted version to be copied to my userspace or sent by e-mail. epsalon (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the original article was not fine, it was completely lacking in reliable sources or indeed any independent sources, or any assertion of notability. But anyway, I have restored it to User:Alon/Haifa Linux Club, recommend you work on adding sources before moving it back to article space. --Stormie (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the restore. However, I recall a much longer page existed before. I think you've restored the 2007 (partial) repost. Is it possible to restore the original Oct 11, 2006 deleted page to my userspace? Thank you. epsalon (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. (not much longer, though...) `'Míkka >t 17:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Article contained neither a claim of notability nor reliable sources (or any sources, for that matter) and would probably be speedied within minutes if re-created as it was. Looking at the unanimous AfD, it's pretty clear nobody wanted to delete it because its site was down, but because it was non-notable and unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - certainly the restored version is a no hoper even to survive a speedy. There are thousands of computer clubs around the world and evidence of existence, or even temporary closure, doesn't cut it. What is needed are reliable secondary sources and there are none. BlueValour (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion still nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN – Deletion overturned. if the claim is indeed deliberately malicious, archiving it helps build evidence against the filer; if it merely a good-faith mistake, archiving it will help prevent future such errors. It is not yet clear whether the claim is meritless, in any case. Beyond blanket assertions, no one has presented any evidence on that basis here to justify the deletion. – Xoloz (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The deleting admin, User:JzG wrote,
“This is clearly fatuous and I don't believe that Taric25's best friend would look on this as his finest hour. Deleting to spare his blushes.”(log)
I do not believe this was a poor moment in my judgement, and I believe my claim deserves serious consideration. I do not think whatever my “best friend” thinks is my finest hour has anything to do with the hard evidence I presented. In fact, my Adopter, User:Matthew Yeager is taking a close look into it. Please undelete the page and let Wikipedians consider the evidence and judge for themselves. I echo User:Maniwar that it needs to remain until the case has been decided.(diff) Taric25 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The issue was decided by the deleting admin, who reviewed the evidence. Consider that as your claim being given consideration because it has been seen and dealt with. Seraphim ^Whipp 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We did not have even ten days to have comments from the community, and even if the admin closed the discussion, it should have been archived, not deleted. Taric25 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As others have said, they believe this SSP report to be in bad-faith as an attempt to besmirch TTN's reputation and gain the upper hand in a content dispute. It was deleted because the accusations were believed to be false and the report did indeed stain TTN's reputation. It may have been an out of process deletion, but it was done in good faith. Sometimes we don't have to follow the rules to the letter; surely thats why we have WP:IAR? Seraphim ^Whipp 12:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I was looking for the upper hand in a content dispute, I would request checkuser under code D for vote fraud, not beat a dead horse by continuing a discussion here. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination) already ended with us keeping the article to allow improvement. If my sole objective was to win that AfD, then I would have finished already and not given two cents about whether TTN is sockpuppeteering or not. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion there appears to be a whole procedure for archiving these things, even ones you think are incorrect! Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive. Deleting a page just because you don't like the question it raised is just a bad idea for what should be obvious reasons. --W.marsh 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Even if the discussion was closed, it should have been archived. Taric25 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you agree, because it was your fatuous claim in the first place. Consider, though: why do we deleted uncertified RfCs? This amounts to the same thing. A vexatious abuse of process. Why on earth should we immortalise it or treat it as sacred? Guy (Help!) 15:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my calim is fatuous as you say, don't you think the community will realize that? Also, RfC and SSP are two totally different depatments. If you believe that SSP has this sort of precident, prove it! Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This appears to me to be a completely baseless accusation made in bad faith by a disruptive editor who appears to be actively courting a block in a blatant attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. It really does not get any more deletable than that, in my book. Is Henke37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? There's zero credible evidence to suggest this. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did give evidence to support why I believe Henke37 is a sockpuppet of TTN, showing how TTN and Henke37's behavior pattern matches What is a troll?#Dealing with inappropriate content. (cache) Please let the community review the evidence for at least ten days and then let the decision be made. Taric25 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I have posted a warning to the user's talk page over his adolescent use of a sockpuppet allegation when he didn't get his way in a content dispute. I also suggest that the user be issued a block as censure for this kind of behaviour. It is completely unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Eusebeus. Taric25 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion as out of process. Even if the discussion were to have been snowball closed, the record should still be archived for transparency of process. Is TTN (talk · contribs) a puppetmaster? I don't know the user specifically, but generally support his practices and processes. Regardless though, one user seems to stridently believe so, and I would want to know the process and evidences proffered that resulted in the decision made. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the accusations are specious, the deletion is appropriate and there should be no archiving of what is basically an improper personal attack. Corvus cornix_talk 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. It amounts to a personal attack, even if it remains unclear whether breathtaking ignorance or deliberate venom was the motivation. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except as far as I know we archive these pages, even if they turn out to be wrong, not delete them. It's like saying we should delete AFDs just because they resulted in a "keep" decision. --W.marsh 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For certain things, we courtesy blank things, I don't think that this could be done here, so the only real alternative is deletion. If otherwise, a courtesy blanking may be appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close through WP:SNOWBALL per pd_THOR. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Four overturns (including yours) and three endorses, none of either with particularly bad arguments, is not WP:SNOW. — Malcolm (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we have no way of knowing what the community will decide when they see the evidence presented before them. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure Tartic seems to honestly believe this is an issue, so I'm not sure you can call it a personal attack. There's a near zero chance that any of it is true, though. On the other hand, undeleting the page could have the effect of driving more nails in the coffin. I could go either way. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion Even if the claim proves spurious a record should still be archived. If, as I suspect TTN has nothing to hide then what is the problem with archiving. Deleting this kind of report just looks shifty. RMHED (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the old "If he isn't guilty, he shouldn't object if we rifle through his files" argument. Corvus cornix_talk 21:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we should never be allowed to investigate abuse anywhere because we might get it it wrong occasionally? This investigation was being conducted openly. At worst it should have been rejected and archived. --W.marsh 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't say we shouldn't investigate abuse, but if there is no abuse, then the initial accusations should be removed, not archived. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then why are we apparently only doing that here? It sounds like you want a broad change of deletion/abuse investigation policy. --W.marsh 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This appears to have been a deletion completely outside of process. No CSD, No PROD, No AfD. The actual nature of the allegations are really irrelevant here. The issue is to review the process. We should not be distracted by the emptiness of the claims. Such deletion feeds the growing paranoia and is not transparent. Openness demands it be undeleted. Once done, it can be sent to AfD for full community review. -JodyB_talk 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the ever-sensible W.marsh (unless it has in fact become our [uncodified] practice to delete SSP reports that are regarded as entirely unfounded and the keeping of which appears to have no benefit [I don't believe that it has, but SSP isn't an area of which I have had much occasion to take part]; deletion might then be appropriate, although only, of course, after this one is deemed to have been entirely unfounded—it doesn't seem clear, I'd note, that it has). Joe 22:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per W.marsh. I am not endorsing the claim of sock puppetry, but I also believe W.marsh says it well, that the case was deleted improperly. --Maniwar (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do believe that the case was dealt reasonably, but, as in any cases of "be bold", if there are some objections, no big deal to return to full bureaucracy without much drama. `'Míkka >t 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Let someone rule on the suspected sockpuppetry request, then let someone else decide if the page should be deleted as a personal attack if TTN is found innocent. -Nard 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN is innocent. There is zero credible evidence of sockpuppetry. That was why I deleted the page in the first place. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, we are not here to discuss whether or not TTN is innocent or not, and you are not one to decide whether or not he is. We are here to discuss whether or not to undelete the page in order to let the community examine the evidence I presented. Do not claim that I offered zero evidence or that is not credible, because that is for the community to examine, not one user to unilaterally delete.

Endorse - The page was created in bad faith and is not necessary for the function of the encyclopedia. There is no reason to undelete it. FCYTravis (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be correct and probably are. However this deletion was fully outside of process and that is what is under discussion here. Resurrect and send it to XfD which is what should have been done. Otherwise, we set a nasty precedent that any unfavorable documentation can be deleted at the whim of any one person. This was not a PROD, not an XfD and if it is claimed it is covered by CSD, which section? -JodyB_talk 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "unfavorable documentation." It's a page full of certified lies and misrepresentations designed to smear an innocent user. FCYTravis (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume in bad faith for a moment that I created the page with totally baseless accusations and no credibility in my claim. Don't you think the community is smart enough to see right through that? If I created the page in bad faith, then it would not be possible that the community would decide that TTN is guilty of sockpuppeteering. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn this is not where we decide allegations of sockpupppetry. Surely recent cases have made it obvious we must follow the full process in detail. No admin has the authority to unilaterally delete for reasons like this. DGG (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, because we should allow the community to decide by following the full process in detail. Taric25 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, as Wikipedia should be as open and transparent as possible. Personal attacks might be worthy of delete but expunging them from even the history is unnecessary, especially when in this case you have what might be a real claim, even if it is uncorroborated (I have no knowledge of the truth of the matter as it relates to sockpuppetry). Epthorn (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist If there's so much argument about how this process (or lack thereof) happened, then let's make it happen again and keep an eye on it this time. Jtrainor (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion attacks against editors merit deletion if they cannot be proven, see WP:BLP which applies to all parts of the project including its processes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? BLP certainly does not apply to these kinds of situations.. -- 04:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ned Scott (talk • contribs)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of tools for static code analysis – History undeleted, per request – Xoloz (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

(forgive me if I'm doing this wrong) I'm requesting a history-only undelete. The page has been recreated according to better style. Still it would be helpful to have access to the history as it shows the evolution of the page and clears ambiguation on what has been lost. In light of the page rewrite, I believe it was a case of WP:RUBBISH. I also believe it falls under the last clause of WP:LOSE. Verdatum (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As original deleting admin, I have no problem with this; however, it might be worth noting that there are an awful lot of external links in that article. There may be reasons for some of them; however, note that the reason it was deleted in the first place was the fact that it was almost solely links to non-notable products. In my opinion, there should be a good reason to link to a web site, where the product is so non-notable that it doesn't have an article (perhaps, at the very least, these should be redlinks, not external links?) Ral315 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and I have just made a comment to that effect, proposing a method of cleanup. Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> There may be reasons for some of them

There are good reasons, as discussed in the history and discussion pages; one of the repeated, allegedly rule-based deletions was particularly egregious, as it was of a demonstrably notable tool. Another of the deletions mentioned in the discussion removed two notable tools which I needed to investigate in my day job. This list is useful as it stands, though of course it could use some more editing; the repeated deletions rendered it less useful.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we view it as an important tool, it should be a red link, not an external link. Ral315 (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s an important tool and it’s likely to get an article written about it in the near future. In the meantime, realistically, the external links are useful for those of us working in the field. (Disclaimer: I had my lunch paid for yesterday by the VP of one of the deleted companies—this may disqualify me from restoring that particular company, but I hope it doesn’t disqualify me from commenting on the general issue.)

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I fail to see what any of this has to do with the request to undelete the history. It sounds as though this type of discussion belongs in the existing talk page. -Verdatum (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Zwaanendael Colony – source is proven older, so this is an unquestionable copyright violation. Try rewriting from the texts referenced in that source or other reliable sources. – GRBerry 05:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'd like to ask you to respectfully reconsider this delete. The URL of the alleged copyright violation (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1259094) is not necessarily the owner or source of the text in question. It seems just as likely that it was copied from wikipedia in the first place, or that the same user contributed the content for both. Perhaps if it went into AfD or something it would give editors a chance to address possible copyright concerns (if they truly exist). Elpiseos (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Everything2 article cites "America's Historylands: Landmarks of Liberty, National Geographic Press, 1967" and "Delaware: A Guide To The First State, ed. Jeanette Eckman, Hastings House Press; New York, 1955" as its sources. We can certainly have a viable article about this colony based on, for instance, those sources. >Radiant< 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Everything2 article was uploaded Feb 23 2002, while the Wikipedia article was written starting in 2007. A reverse copyvio seems unlikely here without further evidence. In situations like this, we assume we don't have permission to use the copyrighted text until proven otherwise. --W.marsh 16:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above comment by W.marsh. Time stamps don't lie. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Plenty of sources are available to rewrite this article from scratch. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - all the indications are that the Everything2 article pre-dates the Wikipedia version so copyvio must be assumed. Without prejudice to a clean recreation from available reliable sources. BlueValour (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, nothing to show that this isn't a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michelle Watt – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Changes have been made in accordance with reasons the page was originally deleted ie categories listed, outside references listed. Michelle Watt is a TV presenter who has worked in the business for a number of years. She has done - and is doing - a lot of mainstream work. She is the daughter of a very notable world champion sportsman and receives a lot of press for her own TV and media work Happiness12345 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the original article, but I'm sure that you could create a valid version of the article in your own User space with reliable sources if all that you say is true. But her being the daughter of somebody famous has no bearing whatsoever on her own notability, so drop that argument. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer went with the clear (and only possible) consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as AfD closer). The article has been created by three (single-purpose) different accounts and deleted three times. While participation in the initial AfD was low, the article hardly asserted notability, had no sources a, the participants opinions were clear and also indicated that some further sources had been searched for. The second recreated article did still have no sources and was tagged for CSD A7 and deleted as repost. The third creation by the nominator was again tagged and deleted for not asserting notability as the main text read: "Michelle Watt is a Scottish Television Presenter. She is the daughter of Jim Watt (former world boxing champion, now Sky Sports commentator)".

It had, however, the following external links which I think the nomination refers to as outside sources that could address the original reasons for deletion:

[2] Club Cupid
[3] Michelle's Official Website
[4] Kirkintilloch Herald
[5] RDF Management
[6] Cormack Creative Management
[7] Hottest 100 Scots.

So I understand the request here mostly to review whether these are sufficient to allow recreation.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as last deleting admin. I deleted this article for it's orignal tag as nn-bio which I believed was correct and also that it was a repost, with no major changes since it's original creation and AfD with the exception of the links added in it's last re-creation. Regarding the links Tikiwont cited above, in my opinion her own website, the Kirkintilloch herald, and The Hottest 100 Scots isn't screaming notability to me. Though as with all my deletions I'm willing to restore if the community believes otherwise. ^Khukri 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer via speedy, I stand by my decision. First, there is no assertion of notability which makes it ripe for a speedy delete. Two, the article is substantially the same as that previously deleted which also makes it ripe for deletion. Three, the so-called sources are external links to mostly non-notable, non-independent sites. The only exception is an article from her hometown newspaper. Fourth, there is a difference between an EL and a source. Not one comment was actually sourced. In addition, I would have userfied the article in someone's userspace had they asked. The DRV page recommends asking the deleting admin first before posting it here which User Happiness12345 did not do. I stand by my decision that the article should have been deleted in its present form but will move to his userspace if asked. -JodyB_talk 12:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that it was appropriate for User:Happiness12345 to take this issue to DRV, rather than asking the deleting admin, since Michelle Watt has been deleted by three different admins, the first of whom did so pursuant to an AfD. Since reinstating this article would in effect be overturning the AfD, a DRV is a more appropriate means to do so than a decision by any of the deleting admins. (See discussion at my talk page.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn coverage in multiple sources, including the Daily Record, The List and the various television shows she has worked on are a demonstration of notability. Catchpole (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Notability is not inherited. If somebody wants to create a new version in userspace with proper sourcing (not external links, but proper in-line sourcing of specific claims) not limited to press releases and personal websites, then we might have a case for a newly created article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Filmcow – Deletion endorsed. – Chick Bowen 02:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Illegitimate Deletion, the article I made did NOT fall within criteria for speedy deletion, and everything that WAS considered "too short" was quickly rewritten within 30 minutes of the Speedy Deletion issue. The article was deleted soon afterwards while not falling within ANY criteria for speedy deletion, and all it was was an article on the Internet based film studio Filmcow (of which I am not affiliated) and they have enough of a reputation to be supported in a wiki article (they created Charlie the Unicorn and other noteable movies). Please consider this review. I believe this deletion to be unjust. Livebrick (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid A7 and notability is not inherited. --Core desat 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I don't see any assertion of notability in that article, looks like a perfectly valid A7. Suggest you recreate citing reliable sources independent of the subject which establish notability. --Stormie (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Charlie the Unicorn was deleted for lack of notability also, so that's probably not a great argument for keeping Filmcow. --Stormie (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion classic A7 speedy, as written. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a short term userifcation to allow Livebrick a chance to work on it. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Moneybomb – Closure as "no consensus" endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I originally closed the AFD on Moneybomb as a delete, citing a flood of SPAs and an apparent consensus to delete among established editors. However, I was informed that not all the arguments I dismissed were from SPAs, and I reclosed it as no consensus. There has been support for both closures on my user talk page, and I am requesting a review of my own decision to keep the article as no consensus. I've opted to bring it here rather than relist the AFD or re-close it as delete. Core desat 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are regular users allowed to comment here? (I've never worked with DRV before.) I was involved with the page as a third opinion, and I gave my vote on the AfD. Can I give my thoughts here, or is that a COI of some form? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly you may comment here (as can all informed editors) but remember that this is not AFD-round 2. Please focus your comments on the question of whether the AFD process was properly followed and whether the closure was reasonable given the state of the discussion. Welcome to DRV. Rossami (talk)
While I share the frustrations of some editors involved, the mediocre state of the article and the presence of SPAs do not add up to an excuse to delete. AfDs cannot be used as a punishment for slow or lacking cleanup, and that is how this closure came across. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure. I think "no consensus" was your only choice. While there were some good arguments on both sides (after discounting the suspiciously new users and the incivility), two of the deletion arguments had to be thrown out because "delete/merge" is incompatible with GFDL. We can not merge content and then delete the attribution history of the content which is being merged. (Ideally, that point would have been raised during the discussion and the two participants could have modified their comments.) I count 3 clear delete (plus the 2 invalid "delete&merge"), 3 clear keep plus 3 that could arguably be discounted and 3 sets of comments that are either explicitly neutral or are too ambiguous to call.
Note that as a "no consensus" decision, it can always be renominated and run through a second discussion. Hopefully the second round will be more polite. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for an essay on this subject. I would not consider those comments invalid, per the arguments in that essay. Chick Bowen 02:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure. Having followed the AfD, when I saw your first closure as "delete" I was surprised; it had looked like a "no consensus" to me. It also seemed to me that most of the AfD opinions were from legit editors, although I didn't do a close examination. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure there was clearly no consensus to delete and a keep decision would also have been contentious. No consensus was the only way to go. RMHED (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse first closure. "No consensus" is a de facto keep; the only bearing the "no consensus" really has is the possibility of a second AfD in the future. Eliminating the SPAs and COI editors from the equation there was a consensus to delete. - Chardish (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the non consensus That does seems to be the best way--it will need to be resolved, but hopefully the article will be better by a second try after a reasonable time. . DGG (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the non consensus Clearly if there was an overwhelming voice that said delete and/or merge, it would have been a lot more noticeable. A very easy decision- however what concerns me is the deletion of the link to this page on Moneybomb by John J. Bulten- this matter has only just been opened for discussion. Monsieurdl (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nonconsensus closure My mistake, M. dl, I did not realize DRV had been reopened, will fix. Since this particular discussion is a happy consensus, I will only provide one obligatory rationale: the quality of the arguments from all 6 keeps (however weighted) was markedly stronger than the delete arguments. E.g., 2 of the deletes were "coattail" coatracks without their own rationale, which would seem to discount them when the original coatrack suspector withdrew the rationale as non-fact-based. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes do happen- just look under my name for many :P You seem to be quite reasonable with the changes, and with improvement hopefully it will not come up again. Monsieurdl (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus closure. Looking through the AfD, that seems like the clear result to me; I certainly don't see a consensus to delete, and neither argument particularly overcame the other. Terraxos (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse second closure I didn't see enough to push it one way of the other over other legit comments. I'm with Orange Mike and Rossimi. --\/\/slack (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Voodoo Tiki – Deletion endorsed as advertising. A fully sourced draft in userspace is needed before unprotection can be considered. Please note that all deleted articles are reviewed on their merits; attacking the deleting admin as an attempt to get a deletion overturned has never worked and never will. – Chick Bowen 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I was surprised to find that an entire entry would be INDEFINETELY BLOCKED from being created as the result of ONE user's actions?! Is this ethical or even legal to ban an article from ever being written from Wikipedia based on the entry of one individual? Upon further investigation, it appears that the Admin reacted in a very emotional manner. Aside from the fact that the person who has indefinetely blocked this page from being created has now RETIRED fro Wikipedia because (in his own words written on his user page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG) "This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia." I am requesting that the option for someone to create a page for Voodoo Tiki Tequila be unblocked and monitored for appropriateness and that the individual who caused this be under review by Wikipedia and perhaps no longer be allowed to make such hasty and unethical decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.180.157 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Correcting and signing the nomination. This nomination has been removed twice because the nominator got the title wrong and no one was able to find a page by that title that had actually been deleted. Here is the correct link. The page itself has been deleted 5 separate times - once for being a copyright violation and the remaining four under speedy deletion case G11. User:JzG was only the most recent admin to delete the page.
The page is not protected. A contributor to this page was, however, blocked for harassment and spamming of other wikipedia pages.
To the nominator: The page also failed to provide independent sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria. Unless such sources are provided here, your request for reconsideration is unlikely to succeed. Rossami (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support this deletion and the four before it. This is a non-notable; repeatedly-recreated spam for an obscure product, properly deleted by three different editors, one of them among our most respected. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I'm not finding anything at all about Voodoo Tiki that isn't sourced from press releases from the producer. Of course if anyone out there can find reliable sources regarding its notability, they should use them to create a better article. --Stormie (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suppprt deletion If there are every usable sources for notability, an article can be recreated, but this is a clear G11. DGG (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 December 2007[edit]