Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.
Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).
Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.
Contents
|
[edit] What is this page for?
Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.
[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
- Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
- Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
- Deletion Review may also 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.
- In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).
Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.
The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.
[edit] Temporary review
Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:
- The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
- The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
- The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.
The latter two may be requested here. Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.
[edit] History-only undeletion
Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.
[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'
For these uncontroversially deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
[edit] How do I do all this?
All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.
Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.
[edit] Instructions
Before listing a review request:
- discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?.
- please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
[edit] Commenting in a deletion review
In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.
[edit] Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
[edit] Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review
 |
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a prod, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
| 2. |
Copy this template skeleton for most pages:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
Copy this template skeleton for files:
{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 3. |
Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 5. |
Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a |
| 6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use the following template: |
[edit] Active discussions
[edit] 25 February 2012
[edit] State Patty's Day
(housekeeping note: I'm not notifying any deleting administrators because there are so many, and I don't know where to begin, or if it's even necessary)
I'm a little bit surprised this hasn't already come up and been undeleted. This event is huge in State College, and is all over the local media. The students and revelers love it, but the townies hate it because of the uptick in crime, etc. As for proving its notability, I will simply provide a list of the hundreds of mentions just this year in notable media: [1]. Whether or not it was notable 4-5 years ago is no longer relevant (although, frankly, it was notable even back then); what's important is that it's definitely notable now. Magog the Ogre (talk) Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Permit creation. I found that nomination very convincing. I wonder whether it should be a redirect to a subsection of Pennsylvania State University rather than a separate article, but the case for creating something in that space is extremely clear to me.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 24 February 2012
[edit] 23 February 2012
[edit] noel ashman
salted topic- This article was rejected because it was a salted topic and because teh sources were secondary- I have cleaned it up to include only the most relevant sources, and believe the page should eb reconsidered for inclusion. What do I do next? Broodwhich (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)broodwhich
- Don't quite know how DRV works, but there's more discussion here. The gist of it is that an AfC was submitted, there was a brief AN discussion and no one seemed to want to unprotect it. I declined the AfC simply because there's no way I can create it. All relevant links are at the discussion on my talk I just linked to. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 22 February 2012
[edit] 21 February 2012
[edit] Christine Kuo
Closed as "Keep (NAC)", but from what I can see from the discussion, this is not as obvious keep as a WP:NAC should be, especially if you bear in mind that one of the "keepers" are a blocked user. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- though it was certainly not an obvious keep before the third party sources were added--, but now I think almost any admin would have closed the same. The easiest thing to do if you disagree is to wait a few months , and start another AfD The most we are likely to do here really is relist. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse It looks like there was a clear consensus to keep the article. Also Mentoz86's only concern is that the closing editor was a non-admin, and not that closing as keep is totally incorrect. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse - the result of the debate, excluding the blocked user and possible socks, was rather obviously "keep", with just a single editor but me arguing for deletion, and that was before the sources in Chinese were added. The closure was entirely appropriate. Huon (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, endorse. Administrators are not authority figures, and the ability to gauge consensus is not confined to those who've passed through the screwed up ritual hazing/popularity contest that is RFA.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close looks correct. No case is made here that the close was incorrect or even ambiguous. Remind the closer to explicitly note that it was a WP:NAC. Doing so in the edit summary is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Olivia Holt
This actress currently meets notability guidelines – she is a series regular on Disney's Kickin It. Tinton5 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse - The applicable guideline calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". One role doesn't cut it. Additionally, as a biography of a living person, we need independent reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overturn Five sources were able to found on the actress: [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7], so obviously her career, while still fresh has been covered by other websites. WP:TOOSOON was pretty much the reason why the article was deleted in the first place. The series Kickin' It premiered in June of last year, has a regular role on that show and the show has been renewed for second season [8]. A decent sized article for the actress is not a bad thing at this point. QuasyBoy 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Userfy or endorse - if someone wants to write a well-sourced article on Holt I'm all for it, and the deleted version can be userfied as a draft if someone thinks it's a good basis. But if no one plans on actually adding the sources presented here, undeleting a BLP without a single reliable source will do no good. Huon (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 20 February 2012
[edit] 19 February 2012
[edit] Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth
- Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was an incomplete debate prior to the deletion which follows:
Current debate: My problem with the deletion is that those who want it deleted, in their zeal to be found correct, haven't adequately completed the debate prior to the decision. I've made very valid rebuttals above to each and every proposed reason for deletion without adequate further debate concerning those rebuttals.
For example, the most persistent complaints:
1) That he's not notable. I agree, his life on its own is not very notable. The article is not at all about his life. It is about the strange circumstances surrounding his conception and the minor portions of his life which shed light upon his ancestry. For that reason it is plainly entitled The Ancestry of John of Sawbridgeworth. Therefore, whether or not John of Sawbridgeworth was a notable person in his own right is irrelevant. The manner of, and the circumstances surrounding his conception and early childhood, ARE very notable. Obviously notoriety is a matter of opinion. I would like someone to give me the definition of notoriety and explain point by point how this article does not comply.
2) That it's original research. This is absolutely false according to the Wikipedia definition of original research. It should be fairly evident by the 60+ historical references cited that this is all existing history. The historical facts have merely been presented in a new format. I would like this point addressed as well, which also has not been done in the previously abbreviated "debate".
I won't repeat here all the other irrelevant complaints as they're all plainly outlined above, along with my rebuttals, which also weren't addressed. I'll close by saying that the amount of attention this article has drawn almost seems absurd. The bottom line is that it displays valid facts on a notable topic and should be presented to the researching public in order that they have the opportunity to draw their own conclusions without the censoring by overzealous Wikipedia staff members. 186.99.150.194 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete the article, it couldn't have been closed any other way. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse: The IP editor who took this to DRV appears to be Pablocombiano (talk · contribs) editing without logging in. This editor has been pointed to every relevant policy, most importantly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2. The AFD discussion and result was unambiguous and in alignment with policy. This is a case of WP:IDHT. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. Re-examining the discussion, it confirms my !vote of delete. The articles was original research for the first half, and a general discussion of other people with the same surname, whose connection with the subject is a matter of original research also. (And even considered as research, it was exceeding speculative--and stated as such in the article.) If anyone wants to restore the article for discussion they may, but as nobody but the appellant here supported it, no other close to the discussion was possible. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I've got a personal interest in this as someone who knows Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire rather well, and as primary author of History of Hertfordshire. Was there any content or sourcing in that article relevant to the extremely notable Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford or any of his family before 1675? I note that we do have coverage of the Seymour family and that it could be more complete.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Note: - article temp-undeleted, mainly for SM to see - there is a lot of Seymour-related material here, and maybe the author could be encouraged to contribute to expanding relevant existing articles. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you.
There's too much there to assess off the cuff. If this is re-deleted on closure of the DRV, would the closer mind dropping a copy in my userspace?—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you.
Well, I didn't realize that my new argument (yes this is Pablocombiano) would be completely ignored. The whole point of this review is to have a complete debate, which didn't occur in the first round. Why don't you address the rebuttals, rather than simply reaffirm your original statements? I have pointed to the Wikipedia guidelines which state that it is not original research, for example. This smells like a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of DRV is not to rerun the debate, DRV is not AFD2, it's to see if the process was followed properly or not. You seem to have a misapprehension of what wikipedia is, it isn't a god given right that you can put any article you want here and those who wish to remove it have to convince *you* that it doesn't belong. i.e. your lack of understanding of the policies or disagreement are not reasons any given content will stay. However to address a couple of your points, bearing in mind that I didn't see the original article so can't draw on much. (1) Notability isn't a matter of opinion as you state, in order to try and remove the idea that wikipedian X believe it to be notable as the criteria some level of objectivity has been defined - the general notability guideline being the base standard. For this you have to have multiple independent reliable sources writing about the subject directly and in detail - note this isn't sources writing about constituents of the article, but sources about the subject of the article itself - i.e. are there articles writing about "Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth" as the core topic? (2) original research, you seem to be assuming that because there are a bunch of references to facts it can't be OR, however the policy specifically covers the idea of synthesis of sources, i.e. taking sources and munging them together to reach a new conclusion (implicitly or explicitly) not reached by those sources. Indeed your nomination here suggests the same "The historical facts have merely been presented in a new format." which sounds like a synthesis to me. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Later, having looked at this more closely) Please can we incubate this content. Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't want it in its current form, but there is scope to expand our coverage of the Seymour family, which did include a Queen of England and the Duke of Somerset, among rather a lot of other notable people. Some of this particular content is relevant to the first Earl of Hertford, and/or belongs in other articles that we already have.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Recommend incubating. Possible "overturn (no consensus) on the basis of a confused nomination. This article was neither a "genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500" nor was is about his "ancestry". It is about an obviously notable family, introduced as the decendents of the oldest identified member. At the very least it needs a rename. There are OR issues, and it does read like an essay, and while these reasons are rarely sufficient to "delete", in combination I can see why partipants !voted so. I am confident something can be made of it, unless it is substantially already forked content, but until improved it might be better out of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment We already have the article in which some of the content would be used, Seymour family, which very much needs expansion, with modern sources, since it's essentially the 1911 EB article. As for merging from the material here, everything in the present article would need to be checked and attributed and updated with references to modern sources. The material on those people who have Wikipedia articles seems to all be internal copyvio, copied from their articles without attribution. The material on the other recent figure seems to mostly be plagiarism, copied from public domain sources without exact attribution. We would need a redirect from this article to maintain attribution also, and it seems a problem, since there is no reliable evidence that the person of this name is the ancestor or relative to any of the notable Seymours so we could not really even include him in the Seymour family article, It would be better to simply add to Seymour family article from the real sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I spot-checked three articles on individual Seymours and verified that they had been copied. Based on the page's phrasing, I expect that almost all bluelinked individuals were copied. I tagged the page with {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- What I really need to do is take a trip to the Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies building, which is essentially a specialist library for local history and genealogy; I'll certainly find the modern sources DGG mentions there. Conveniently, HALS is one minute's walk from the front door to my workplace, but I'm simply not going to get a chance to spend much time there within the timescale of this DRV. I'm going to repeat my call for incubation for the time being, please.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- FWIW, what I think you really need is a general academic library that gets the major historical journals and databases. The modern sources needed are about major historical figures. And nothing you are likely to find anywhere is at all likely to help the first part of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17
- 05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, but agree to the content being parked somewhere to use as a quarry for material to improve other Seymour articles; the last part might be the basis of an article about the American Seymours. I am not sure the Incubator is the right place, because that is intended for articles being improved to go back into the mainspace; that is not the case here, the article in its present form is not salvageable because its central thesis, that John Semer the cobbler of Sawbridgeworth was an illegitimate child of the aristocratic Seymours, is unadulterated WP:SYNTH and speculation. SM, would you take it as a user sub-page? or we could use the Incubator on an IAR basis. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would be happy to take it as a user subpage. The reason I suggested incubation is because other editors might want to work on the material as well, but we could perhaps achieve that by putting a link from the incubator to the userspace page rather than by dropping the article in wholesale.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Userfied at User:S Marshall/Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth. Shall we consider this DRV complete? Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nor I. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Userfied at User:S Marshall/Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth. Shall we consider this DRV complete? Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 18 February 2012
[edit] The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This article was resolved as "speedy keep" by an administrator who called it a "notable album by notable band", yet its notability was never explicitly established/explained in the AfD. It falls under none of the official guidelines, assuming they are official given that they are not being treated as such. "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." LF (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Recent discussions
[edit] 17 February 2012
[edit] 16 February 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted in 2007 as Scientology cruft. However, last summer the book Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion by journalist Janet Reitman was published. I'm currently reading this book and can attest that the book establishes that Pat Broeker was in fact a major figure in the history of Scientology. It makes it clear that he is equally or more important than a number of other figures such as Mary Sue Hubbard and David Gaiman who have Wikipedia articles. Obviously, since the history of Scientology is shrouded in mystery, as more information becomes available, we will have to reevaluate the importance of what were once thought minor figures and reevaluate decisions such as the one to delete this article accordingly. Note: Closing admin is retired. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was Speedy Deleted under A7, which states “The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.” The article I wrote does make a credible claim of significance or importance, and so it did not meet the standard to be a speedy delete under A7. The given reason for speedy deletion is not true, because the article that I wrote DOES indicate the importance or significance of the subject. After questioning the deleting editor Peridon on his talk page, he now says he deleted the article because it did not meet the standards set in WP:NBASKETBALL - but he should not be the sole judge on that matter. And even if Tyler Brown falls short of WP:NBASKETBALL, he DOES meet the standards set in the general notability guideline. Tourd (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 15 February 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Would like article to be "userified" to allow me to rewrite it according to accepted Wikipedia standards 4850Keele (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
New evidence, see http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=308949 Acecenco44 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 14 February 2012
[edit] Mawashi Protective Clothing
- Mawashi Protective Clothing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore) Shareitnow (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This article was speedily deleted for G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". However, Mawashi Protective Clothing is an organization that should be considered notable, because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Here are some examples:
- http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=654729&crtr.tp1D=1
- https://buyandsell.gc.ca/initiatives-and-programs/canadian-innovation-commercialization-program-cicp/pre-qualified-innovations
- http://lapresseaffaires.cyberpresse.ca/finances-personnelles/consommation/201006/21/01-4291917-g8-g20-jai-mal.php
- http://www.designlaunches.com/gadgets/personal_cooling_system_that_keeps_you_cooled_on_the_go_by_jeanmarc_sheitoyan.php
- http://transportail.com/pi2011/index_en.asp?id_page=194
Thereby, if you consider these external source of information as reliable, could you consider undeleting this page? I will be waiting for your comments, and thank you for your consideration. Shareitnow (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- 'temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ' DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The article was not deleted by lack of a claim to importance, though it could have been; it was deleted as being exclusively promotional, and incapable of improvement through normal editing. I delete a great many promotional articles, and usually a promotional G11 speedy deletion is an article making purely advertising-style or Press-release style vague claims supported only by flowery adjectives, rather than giving information; as is obvious from inspection, this one is different: it's a mere product list making no claims at all besides that the company makes the products listed, and their plainly stated suitability for certain uses. But Wikipedia is not a product catalog, and there is no encyclopedic information present. I'm not entirely sure this meets the usual understanding of the G11 Promotional criterion. But I am sure that in its present form it could not possibly stay in Wikipedia--the need for this sort of material is adequately served by the company's web site. Of the references given, the only one that could be used for showing notability is the 3rd, which is a full article in a reliable news site about one of the products; the others could be used, but do not show notability : the 4th is too unsubstantial; the first two merely show the product was considered by the Canadian government for development support; the 5th is a listing of a presentation at a trade show. I think the article could be rewritten and might have a chance at AfD--but not in its present form. It might be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Understood. Could I have the opportunity to rewrite the article by giving substantial information more suitable for the Wikipedia encyclopedia? Shareitnow (talk) 8:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Userfy to Shareitnow to give him the chance he seeks. The article should be brought back to this page for re-assessment before it can be moved to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I started a draft of the revised article on my sandbox, could you please give me feedback on it? The draft page is accessible here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shareitnow/sandbox Thank you! Shareitnow (talk) 9:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am very tempted to nominate that draft for deletion right now. Unless you rewrite it completely to remove all the sales nonsense (for example, you do not "offer solutions") it will not be accepted. Yoenit (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Shareitnow, do you have a personal interest in this subject. Please review WP:COI, and post any relevant declarations of conflict of interest on your userpage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Paul J. Alessi (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was speedily deleted for CSD G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.". The description of the criteria required for deletion via this rule are as follows: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." I would like to appeal this deletion. The original cause of the deletion of this article was CSD G12: "Unambiguous copyright infringement.", as the prior author of the article had only copy/pasted information from other websites. I did a major revision so that the article had no such violation; all of the writing was original, no copy/pasting. Yet it was still deleted under CSD G4. I have both the original author's old and my new scripts saved to my computer, if anyone would like to confirm and review that they are indeed substantially different. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Trismosin (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] Salvador Tercero
The AfD was closed early due to speedy deletion as G7 (author requests deletion). In this particular case, I believe the article was a useful article on a notable recording professional, and that the subject of the article pressured the author into requesting deletion (edit summary read "deleting bio due to unauthorized info"). It would set a disturbing precedent if we allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, without any discussion. (Note: I did not discuss this with the closing administrator because I want to establish a broader consensus around the issue of G7 cases similar to this one, although I did invite them to participate in the discussion.) Dcoetzee 03:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse with no prejudice against immediately recreating the article, just as G7 would, in almost all cases, bear with it no similar prejudice. G7 lets the author of an article request deletion of his/her article so long as no other editors have made meaningful contributions. The article's author retains that "right," as it were, until the article's deletion would involve deleting someone else's work. While I certainly agree that biographical articles shouldn't be deleted just because their subjects don't like them, in this case the biographical article is being deleted because the author's article requested deletion. That should be a cut and dry distinction with no room for subjective judgment or inference, just like G7. If someone else wants to write an article on Salvador Tercero, that's fine and dandy. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse the speedy because the terms of G7 were met (I am assuming what has been said about the history). The risk of deletion due to improper pressure is mitigated because anyone is able to recreate even using the material verbatim, with proper attribution. The licence to do this is still in effect. The article visible in the cache could reasonably have been speedied as "no indication of importance". Thincat (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. G7 exists so authors can correct their mistakes before they become permanently embedded. I have declined G7s when I think the topic is worth writing about and can be written about; I have deleted them when it seems better that the article should never have been started or needs to be re-started. It should not be regarded as an entitlement. This is especially true when the reason is given as here. If the original author feels it unwise to continue, they can of course do not have to continue, but someone else can take over. Subjects requesting the deletion of their own article should never have been included in BLP policy as other than a very exceptional case. I've closed a few such as delete when there really is reason to make an exception because of hopelessly disproportionate coverage that would violate Do no harm. But most of the time, it's mere embarrassment--which,though real enough, is not something we can consider without it shading into the much worse situation of the subject disagreeing with the contents of the article. When there is reason for the subject to validly disagree, the proper procedure is OTRS, which I think handles all justifiable cases sympathetically--though the justifiable cases are a relatively small proportion of the complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is that what is meant by "in good faith," in the G7 description? Otherwise, I can't really see anything in G7 that backs up making the kind of judgment call you're describing, DGG. But my question is a sincere one: if that's what is meant by "in good faith," then perhaps you have a point. Also entirely possible there's some other factor I'm not considering. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also certainly respect what DGG says. I doubt that any action here can be said to "do no harm" so we are left wondering what would do least harm. Like Ginsengbomb, I do not really know what might be behind this. Thincat (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. G7 exists so authors can correct their mistakes before they become permanently embedded. I have declined G7s when I think the topic is worth writing about and can be written about; I have deleted them when it seems better that the article should never have been started or needs to be re-started. It should not be regarded as an entitlement. This is especially true when the reason is given as here. If the original author feels it unwise to continue, they can of course do not have to continue, but someone else can take over. Subjects requesting the deletion of their own article should never have been included in BLP policy as other than a very exceptional case. I've closed a few such as delete when there really is reason to make an exception because of hopelessly disproportionate coverage that would violate Do no harm. But most of the time, it's mere embarrassment--which,though real enough, is not something we can consider without it shading into the much worse situation of the subject disagreeing with the contents of the article. When there is reason for the subject to validly disagree, the proper procedure is OTRS, which I think handles all justifiable cases sympathetically--though the justifiable cases are a relatively small proportion of the complaints. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's certainly possible that the scenario Dcoetzee suggests was right, i.e. that the subject had a way of putting pressure on the author. It's also possible that the information in that article wasn't in the public domain; maybe the author was a friend, relative or employee of the subject. In such circumstances, we definitely do want the author to be able to retract something they come to view as their mistake. The risk is that someone could suffer negative consequences as a result of their editing activities. We can't eliminate that completely, but I think that we need to protect our contributors to the maximum extent we can.
However, there's a balance to be struck. Some editors, such as me, choose to use their real name for editing Wikipedia. Others, also such as me, put personally identifying information on their userpage and unequivocally indicate that they are adults. By doing so we are voluntarily accepting the consequences of their edits; we're effectively waiving the right to retract. But some editors are children, some are vulnerable people, so if we don't know who the editor is, our default position should be to assume that we need to protect them as much as we can.—S Marshall T/C 22:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Using G7 is not a safe way of satisfying do no harm, because it is too easy to re-create the article, deliberately or inadvertantly. If there is a true BLP problem, the article should be deleted under an appropriate reason, (either G3 vandalism or G10, abuse of the subject). The reason for this does not need to be made public on Wikipedia-- WP:OTRS exists for the purpose of dealing with these matters confidentially, and those of us who work there will always do what is necessary on a genuine case (although the majority requests there for deletion of material are not justified by WP policy, and the request is declined, with a full explanation). DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- DGG, did you fully understand me? My remark was basically about protecting the author, not protecting the subject.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was intrigued by Ginsengbomb's question above about whether G7 lent itself to the "judgment call" DGG described, so I dug up the history of CSD#G7 to see if I could come up with an answer. The collapsed text below is pretty long, but it informs my opinion in this DRV, so you may want to read it.
| The History of G7 |
|---|
G7 was not one of the original criteria for speedy deletion. It originated as one of many potential criteria proposed for addition in January 2005. Of those, only three – the items which would later become G7, A3, and A4 – were ratified by the community. G7 was ratified by a vote of 156-21. The newly added criterion provided for the deletion of:
On January 16, 2005, SimonP did the honors of adding the three new criteria, including the earliest version of G7. Our understanding of G7 can be informed by some of the instructive comments which were made around the time of the vote.
As these comments demonstrate, the crux of G7 when it was ratified by the community was the “mistake clause,” which read, “provided the author reasonably explains that it was created by mistake.” Even in 2005, there were already complaints about the CSD being too byzantine. On November 24, Radiant! removed the mistake clause as part of his broader attempt to make the entire policy page simpler. There was a thread on the talk page about his changes, but it did not include specific discussion of the removal of the mistake clause. On December 20, 2005, David Levy restored the mistake clause, “the lack of which changes [the criterion’s] meaning to something radically different than what was intended.” On January 9, 2006, R3m0t added a blanking provision to G7 for the first time, after this talk page discussion. This marked the end of the early development of G7; it would be static, with both the mistake clause and the blanking provision intact, for over a year.
On February 11, 2007, Steel significantly changed G7 by removing the mistake clause. Steel did not explain or discuss this edit anywhere on-wiki, nor was the edit prompted by any on-wiki policy discussion that I can find. I looked at Steel's deletion log to find an impetus for his edit. On February 11, 2007, he deleted the following pages under G7:
That last one preceded his edit to WP:CSD by only 13 minutes, making it the likeliest candidate. As best as I can tell without the ability to view deleted edits, the image was associated with a userbox which Steel was also deleting. At 19:49, he deleted Template:User homophobia under T1, “divisive and inflammatory.” He informed the userbox’s creator, User:PatPeter, of the deletion, prompting a hostile discussion. It appears that PatPeter recreated the userbox in his userspace (at User:PatPeter\User homophobia); Steel deleted it under T1 at 20:08. It appears that PatPeter then recreated the userbox a second time in the same location. What happened next I cannot say without access to deleted edits; however, at 20:22, Steel deleted the userbox under U1 (user request) and the associated image under G7. It’s possible that PatPeter tagged the pages for deletion; it’s possible that he blanked one or both; and it’s also possible that Steel interpreted this comment as a request for deletion. Regardless, after these deletions, Steel made no further edits and took no further admin actions before making his edit to WP:CSD. So why did he make the policy edit? My educated guess is that the file he had deleted did not strictly meet G7 because it was not “mistakenly created,” so he sought to change the policy so it would be less restrictive. His edit was not reverted, and thus it became ingrained in the policy. On the next day, February 12, 2007, Ais523 added to G7 a requirement that deletion must be requested “in good faith.” According to his edit summary, he did this “to address the reason why the bit just removed from G7 was there in the first place using a different method.” It does not appear that this was discussed, but it was not reverted and thus became ingrained in the policy. It’s safe to assume that “in good faith” was meant in the standard Wikipedia sense of the phrase, i.e. without malice towards the project. In a brief April 2007 discussion, an editor expressed concern about the removal of the mistake clause. Two administrators responded, indicating that they had no problems with the “in good faith” wording.
Without the mistake clause, G7 was at least technically far more expansive than it had been when the community ratified it. In the period 2008-2010, five exceptions were carved out of G7.
During those years, there were a few discussions on WT:CSD which provide important clarifications of G7:
Since 2010, G7 has been more or less static. |
So, the original intent of G7 was to allow contributors to request the deletion of pages they created but now regard as mistakes, and even though that clause was removed from the criterion in 2007 (by a single administrator, without discussion or explanation), it’s still an important undercurrent running through our understanding of G7. If an editor adds an article to Wikipedia and comes to regard that as a mistake, administrators are encouraged – but not obligated – to kindly extend them the courtesy of deleting it. In this case, the editor who contributed the article came to view it as a mistake when Salvador Tercero expressed displeasure at being the subject of a Wikipedia article. The editor in question did not want to be associated with a living person’s unwanted biography, so viewing his creation of the article as a mistake is entirely reasonable. The whole idea of G7, I believe, is to allow our contributors relief in these kinds of situations. This discussion is particularly relevant here; there is support for deleting under G7 when a contributor does not want to be associated with a living person’s unwanted biography. It’s the ethical thing to do.
Dcoetzee is concerned that this deletion "would set a disturbing precedent [to] allow biographical articles to be deleted just because their subjects don't like them." No such precedent is being set. Any editor is welcome to create a new article on Tercero if they see fit to do so. The precedent that this discussion will set is whether or not G7 can be used as relief for users who do not wish to be associated any longer with their sole authorship of an unwanted BLP. At this point, I think it would be unethical to undelete this version of the unwanted biography and forcibly tie its creator to it. Before the article on Tercero was deleted, any editor could have invalidated the G7 request by substantially editing the article, but now that the deletion has been carried out, we should let sleeping dogs lie. I strongly endorse the speedy deletion, and I think that this deleted version of the article should stay that way. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- A Stop at Willoughby is I think correct about the history of the guideline. But I think he is totally wrong, as diametrically wrong as possible, about the desired result. Even temporarily removing an article because the subject does not like it is a corruption of the concept of NPOV, and thus opposed to one of our foundational policies. In any case, no discussion at a single DRV sets precedent for anything. Wikipedia does not follow precedent in that fashion. The long continued series of consistent consensus can set precedent to a certain extent, at least temporarily. There are too many DRV results at variance with each other on almost everything conceivable for us to say that we set precedent here. In any case, endorsing a speedy is meaningless when anyone can re-create it, though anyone who does ought of course to independently check the material. Of course, if there is a true BLP issue, I count on people to tell me, but nobody has done so. If nobody does, I will assume there is not, and it is just personal preference. If we honor that, we descend to the who's who level. In the context of making an encyclopedia , it's unethical. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- DGG, sorry for being a little misleading. I didn’t mean to use the word “precedent” to imply something binding; as you said, no single DRV sets that kind of precedent. I only meant that when situations like this arise in the future, users can look back and see how a similar situation had been handled previously. As for the merits, I guess we should agree to disagree on how this G7 tag should have been handled, given our diametrically opposed positions. We do have some common ground, however. Like you, I think that Wikipedia shouldn’t allow biographical subjects to “opt out” without unusual reasons. (I want to be clear that my vote was not based on an inclination to let Salvador Tercero opt out. My vote, again, is to grant an editor his request to no longer be associated with his sole authorship of an unwanted BLP.) I think we also agree that this would best be resolved by simply waiting for an interested editor to recreate the article. Please correct me if I’m wrong. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- A Stop at Willoughby is I think correct about the history of the guideline. But I think he is totally wrong, as diametrically wrong as possible, about the desired result. Even temporarily removing an article because the subject does not like it is a corruption of the concept of NPOV, and thus opposed to one of our foundational policies. In any case, no discussion at a single DRV sets precedent for anything. Wikipedia does not follow precedent in that fashion. The long continued series of consistent consensus can set precedent to a certain extent, at least temporarily. There are too many DRV results at variance with each other on almost everything conceivable for us to say that we set precedent here. In any case, endorsing a speedy is meaningless when anyone can re-create it, though anyone who does ought of course to independently check the material. Of course, if there is a true BLP issue, I count on people to tell me, but nobody has done so. If nobody does, I will assume there is not, and it is just personal preference. If we honor that, we descend to the who's who level. In the context of making an encyclopedia , it's unethical. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just recreate the bloody thing already This whole discussion is silly. What happened already happened and whether the G7 deletion was valid or not doesn't matter, anybody is allowed to recreate the article. Just do that and we can get back to the discussion at hand: whether this guy is notable. It seems like a good A7 candidate to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yoenit, respectfully, some things on Wikipedia are clearly bureaucratic, and deletion reviews interpreting our overly legalistic criteria for speedy deletion are at the top of that list. But I agree that this should be resolved by simply allowing any interested editor to recreate the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Undelete on the basis of another editor in good standing being interested. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Jaume Cañellas Galindo (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I closed this AFD as delete per no significant coverage in sources. Two users, User:Samen54 and User:Winterfree2000 (not blocked at the time) requested that I restore it. I suggested they create drafts of the page in their userspace. I had an es.wiki sysop who is familar with en.wiki notability and reliable sources guidelines review the sources and the article and confirmed that it met en.wiki guidelines and I restored the article. Later, User:EEng, User:Kinu, and User:Xtv have all approached me with concerns about restoring the article ranging from article does not assert notability, users must be socks, and sources are not reliable. This has become a bit of a mess now so I'd appreciate it if I could get a wider review. v/r - TP 01:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion
This user-space list of diffs seems to have been speedy-deleted without discussion. DGG, the nominator, had elsewhere stated that he was not neutral and "too involved"[17]. The list was less than a week old. I was gathering the diffs to have a more objective answer to a question asked to me at WP:COI/N.
I understand that a non-neutral admin might not like what the diffs conveyed, especially when viewed collectively. I also understand that since they are diffs, not RS's, what they convey should not be edited into mainspace articles. However, I believe this user-space list about a Wikipedia-related matter does not require deletion, much less speedy-delete without discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just take a look at it. (If you're not an admin, I can email you the contents). Accumulation of material for attack on another editor. Does anyone thinks I should send it to MfD to call attention to it,which I suppose is what BG is trying to accomplish? Does anyone want to take the responsibility for blocking the person who's been accumulating this? As BG says, I'm too involved to do that myself, and certainly too involved to act as a mediator. But I'm not too involved to delete an attack p. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- DGG, would you care to detail why those diffs are really so dangerous? Diffs keep us anchored in what really happened. Regarding "accumulation of material for attack on another editor," this is an assumption of bad faith, a violation of WP:AGF. An admin should know better.
- Also, please provide diffs for your comments on my talk page, DGG. I'm pretty sure you've made at least two errors[18], but can't be sure since you didn't provide any diffs.
- As for attack pages, DGG, I notice you haven't deleted these two[19][20].BitterGrey (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Since diffs are often, and reasonably, demanded for dispute resolution, it can be appropriate to create relevant lists. However, precedent seems to be that some such lists should not be kept on-wiki and I can go along with this. In this case a second admin performed the deletion. If BitterGrey has now lost his work, DGG should be (and I think is) willing to email it to BG for maintenance offline. Thincat (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Three seconds. Fastily made 42 deletions in that two-minute period and is currently being discussed at ANI. Regarding this diff list, there was no discussion, and no indication that he gave more than 3-seconds of thought to the deletion. He probably went just by DGG's conclusion, not realizing that DGG wasn't neutral. Unlike DGG, I won't assume a hostile intent: Fastily's deletion was probably in good faith, but not given enough thought.
- My preference would be to keep the list on-wiki, if only to keep DGG and friends from calling it an 'off-wiki attack.' Of course, this history should be available: I think attempts to hide this history are indications that someone has something to hide. BitterGrey (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- At this point, after the attack on my neutrality above, I agree that I should not take any further admin actions. Like many others involved in this subject, I started out neutral--not just neutral, but initially ignorant of the issues. Having learned the issues, I remain sympathetic to all parties involved. But having dealt with the people, and tried as hard as I could to keep a matter that involve not just on-wiki but RW charges affecting personal and academic integrity, I have remained I think on the whole neutral until now, though not from now on. Now experiencing the attitude of one of the people involved, it is clear that my efforts at urging restraint have clearly not succeeded. (I should explain that this is not a case of people resorting to off wiki action to support editing here, but the opposite--a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here). I therefore suggest to BG that I will restore the page if BG wishes to promptly proceed to try for a proper resolution of the matter, presumably via RfC, though I expect it will go further. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- DGG, please learn the difference between quoting what you wrote (with diff) and an "attack." This antagonistic negativity isn't helping anyone. If you are willing to restore the page, that would be great. However, given the breadth of the patterns that emerged, I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive. My goal is transparency: I used Wikipedia histories to build a bigger picture - something anyone can do if they put the time into it. No secrets, no accusations, just history. If Wikipedia collectively knows about that history and the consensus is not to care, that would be fine. Of course, that should be the collective decision, not yours or mine. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Collecting diffs of this sort without using them has normally been held to be an attack. The general feeling has been it leads to increased disharmony. Viewing it that way isn't my private decision, it's part of the practices i'm supposed to be enforcing. either you want this resolved, or you want to continue to build up resentment. There are only two proper things do with disputes of this nature: to ask the help of the community to settle them, or to not let them interfere with the editing. In the one case, you want the diffs to use them in a regular process. In the other case, you don't need them on-wiki. Your choice. To insist on having them here without wanting to use them shows a desire to continue the sort of hostility that amounts to personal attacks. You brought this here. I always recommend acting as if everyone were friends to a certain extent for the sake of the encyclopedia, and not pursuing matters. That remains my advice. But if you can't do that, or even if you don't want to do that for whatever reasons, that's why we have the procedures for resolving the conflicts. I don't think it reasonable to have it both ways: to encourage dissension, but refuse to settle it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "You brought this here."[21] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[22]. DGG, please substantiate or retract your diffless statements. Again, I think you need to get your facts straight. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content. BitterGrey (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: DGG removed[23] my request that he support or retract these and other specific negative statements, after deleting my comment[24] to give himself the last word. Clearly, he was too quick to make accusations and now can't be bothered to support those accusations. How common is this type of behavior among admins? BitterGrey (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "You brought this here."[21] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[22]. DGG, please substantiate or retract your diffless statements. Again, I think you need to get your facts straight. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content. BitterGrey (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Collecting diffs of this sort without using them has normally been held to be an attack. The general feeling has been it leads to increased disharmony. Viewing it that way isn't my private decision, it's part of the practices i'm supposed to be enforcing. either you want this resolved, or you want to continue to build up resentment. There are only two proper things do with disputes of this nature: to ask the help of the community to settle them, or to not let them interfere with the editing. In the one case, you want the diffs to use them in a regular process. In the other case, you don't need them on-wiki. Your choice. To insist on having them here without wanting to use them shows a desire to continue the sort of hostility that amounts to personal attacks. You brought this here. I always recommend acting as if everyone were friends to a certain extent for the sake of the encyclopedia, and not pursuing matters. That remains my advice. But if you can't do that, or even if you don't want to do that for whatever reasons, that's why we have the procedures for resolving the conflicts. I don't think it reasonable to have it both ways: to encourage dissension, but refuse to settle it. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- DGG, please learn the difference between quoting what you wrote (with diff) and an "attack." This antagonistic negativity isn't helping anyone. If you are willing to restore the page, that would be great. However, given the breadth of the patterns that emerged, I'm not going to commit to any particular timeline to 'fix' everything. Rushing to do so would be, at best, disruptive. My goal is transparency: I used Wikipedia histories to build a bigger picture - something anyone can do if they put the time into it. No secrets, no accusations, just history. If Wikipedia collectively knows about that history and the consensus is not to care, that would be fine. Of course, that should be the collective decision, not yours or mine. BitterGrey (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Undelete- No discussion. Nominator has been "too involved"[25] for several months, mistakenly seems to think this is RW problem, and is not assuming good faith. Deleter did so in 3 seconds.BitterGrey (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: while patrolling CAT:CSD I saw that page (and two similar ones) tagged as attack pages, and thought about them for more than an hour. As more than seven hours elapsed from tagging to deletion, a number of other admins must have looked at them too. When Fastily deleted them, I was drafting a reply declining the speedy, saying that I did not consider they fell within the definition of WP:CSD#G10, that they could be taken to MfD under WP:UP#POLEMIC, but that even there I thought, as they were less than three days old, their author could mount a defence under the clause that says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." DGG, is there more than meets the eye here? Why do you think that clause does not apply? JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have reverted my deletion, and have sent it to MfD for a community discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. I have nominated it, but will not be discussing it further. (I think the clause does not apply because the user has said, above, they will not commit to using it promptly) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- DGG, I still expect you to support or retract your negative comments, specifically "You brought this here."[26] and "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[27]. This is an on-wiki matter about Wikipedia content, and admin powers do not include license to hit-and-run. BitterGrey (talk)
- Question DGG has started another deletion discussion while this one hasn't formally closed yet. Could I ask a _neutral_ admin what the likelihood of an "undelete" closure would have been? Given DGG's mishandling of things, his diffless insinuations, and that he is now outside even the letter of Wikipedia procedure[28], I'm getting a really bad feeling about the upper authority structure at Wikipedia. Specifically, I'm hesitant to let him dictate a less favorable "relist" outcome. BitterGrey (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Close. Undeleted and listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bittergrey/CAMH Promotion as a WP:POINTy nomination. This discussion needs to be completed first. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- List at MfD. The page is not a clear attack page. It may, however, violate WP:UP#POLEMIC or be otherwise undesirable. XfD is the place for discussion of the merits of the page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comment:"The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." The list of diffs was only three days old when first deleted, and I'm not a full-time Wikipedian. My concern is that DGG and friends (who are full-time wikipedians) will try to keep me bogged down in multiple deletion discussions and equally pointless deflections to preclude me from doing any good in a timely manner. BitterGrey (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Either endorse outright or move speedily to MFD and delete it there. User is clearly less interested in dispute resolution than in keeping this publicly viewable for as long as possible (see his edits to the MFD, or the current header on this userpage). There's nothing here that couldn't be edited just as easily offline. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Actually, the intent there was to synchronize the concurrent speedy and non-speedy deletion nominations, to try to reduce the amount of debating. Given that the list has only existed for three days (excluding time deleted) and already has two deletion nominations, I had hoped to discourage new nominations for deletion, at least for the next couple days.BitterGrey (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Would others approve of offline development? I'm willing to do so, but (as stated before) would prefer to develop this on-wiki, if only so that DGG and friends can't label it an 'off-wiki attack.'BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. While there are some procedural oddities here. I regard the page as a clear example of an appropriate G10 deletion. If you want to start an RfC you may do so, but you may not gather and present accusations in userspace this way. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. I agree with DGG and Eluchil404. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comment: DGG acted to implement relist[29].
- Endorse. I commented above. G10 deletion looks appropriate to me and nothing in this DRV changes my view. Had the page been only an annotated series of diffs I would have thought MfD appropriate. Thincat (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Question: Might I ask what changed your mind? It is still an annotated list of diffs that an involved admin is trying to delete. Were DGG's "procedural oddities" that persuasive? I'm also curious about the sudden chorus. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- BG, I did what I thought would satisfy you. it was my intent that this be closed since I relisted it elsewhere. I apologize for not making that clearer, but I didn't want to close this, since I've agreed to do no admin function respecting you. I'm glad someone closed the MfD, since it shouldnt be at two places . DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- DGG, When is this 'now-I'm neutral-now-I'm-not' dance ever going to end?
- You've been non-neutral in this issue since some time in 2008. When I got involved in 2011, you "banned" me without due procedure[30]. (You retracted that suddenly too[31].) Are you concerned that a real truthtelling will find out something you don't want known? Now I regret that, in the little time I had to spend developing this list, I didn't spend more time documenting your role in this tangled mess.
- Again, support or retract the growing list of undiffed negative comments you have made against me. BitterGrey (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- In reply to BG "what changed your mind?": I can now see the page in question, previously I could not. My change has been from uncertainty to "endorse", not from "overturn" to "endorse". Thincat (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- BG, I did what I thought would satisfy you. it was my intent that this be closed since I relisted it elsewhere. I apologize for not making that clearer, but I didn't want to close this, since I've agreed to do no admin function respecting you. I'm glad someone closed the MfD, since it shouldnt be at two places . DGG ( talk ) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Might I ask what changed your mind? It is still an annotated list of diffs that an involved admin is trying to delete. Were DGG's "procedural oddities" that persuasive? I'm also curious about the sudden chorus. BitterGrey (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The sudden chorus of editors and IPs voting to endorse a position DGG no longer supports[32] seems to be due to my edit at the other discussion[33]. It has been described as a "boldfaced, all-caps rant"[34], perhaps rightly so. The truth is I've never had one of my user pages deleted, much less double-delete proposed by a "too involved" admin (his words, not mine[35]). The procedure I read said this shouldn't happen, and so didn't give me any guidance about what to do. (Attack pages against me have been let to fester for months, with one nearing its first birthday. Not sure if any of those ever got deleted.) I don't enjoy arguing and was hoping to head off multiple, active deletion debates. BitterGrey (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Bittergrey, the diff you provided seems to suggest that DGG still thinks the page should be deleted. Also, for what it is worth, my endorsing deletion of it had nothing to do with the second diff you provide. It is best not to make assumptions about other editors' motives. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm open to other explanations as to why all the votes to endorse in this week-long debate came within a two-hour period. BitterGrey (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Okay, I'm confused. The DRV was opened because it was felt that DGG deleted something out of process. DGG admitted he may have been in error, reversed his speedy deletion, and put it up at MFD to obtain consensus on whether or not deletion was warranted. And that nomination was then closed as pointy? I don't get it. Once he reversed his decision and allowed it to go up for discussion, why was this DRV not closed and that MFD not allowed to continue? If the page was worthy of being kept, the consensus at MFD likely would have reflected this. Close this DRV and re-open the MFD, and allow it to proceed for the full time, is all I can really say here, based on what I can see. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- It would have been less problematic if this discussion had been closed before the other discussion had started. All we know for sure is that procedures were not followed. This fiasco was, at best, poorly handled by an admin who is, in his own words, "too involved[36]". "Pointy" is putting it mildly: I would consider any use of DGG's administrative
powersauthority against me since he declared non-neutrality in 2011 as abuses of thatpowerauthority. BitterGrey (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)- Once the MFD was opened, this DRV should have been closed as moot. Period. There is no need to keep thwacking at this dead horse when the admin admitted he made a mistake and turned the deletion decision over to the community. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) BitterGrey, to be fair, DGG did not use admin powers against you in this case: he did not delete these pages, he tagged them as G10, which any user could do, and left them in the CSD list for another admin to decide about. He used admin powers to undelete them in order to take them to MfD, but you can't say that was using admin powers against you. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- Clarified. Technically the "ban" didn't involve admin powers either - it just would have been laughable if a non-admin did it. I seem to have missed the admission of wrongdoing, or the retraction of any of the wrong statements he's made in this discussion. As for the renomination, it seems to have brought a chorus for 'Endorse', while before the trend seemed to be 'relist' or maybe even 'undelete,' so it wasn't necessarily an act in my favor. BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- It would have been less problematic if this discussion had been closed before the other discussion had started. All we know for sure is that procedures were not followed. This fiasco was, at best, poorly handled by an admin who is, in his own words, "too involved[36]". "Pointy" is putting it mildly: I would consider any use of DGG's administrative
- Bittergrey, there are good reasons why you don't get to make a laundry list of diffs and accusations in your own userspace. You're publishing dirt about someone in a place they may not see, and/or may not feel they have the right to reply. Your laundry list of diffs and accusations belongs in some kind of text document on your own computer, or any other kind of unpublished state, until you actually lauch an RFC. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I have to disagree on multiple points. "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". As for inviting others to contribute, the only invite I was able to get out before the deletion is here. Please note that there is no "except you" statement, and assuming one is yet another violation of good faith. That is also an example of my use of the list. I had hoped to use it conversationally on talk pages instead of building it up as some massive out-of-the-blue "attack". Less disruptive for Wikipedia, and less work for me. Given the multiple undiff'ed accusations that I had not planned to use the list above, I'll add a redundant and boldfaced link to that instance where the list was already used. I regret that others don't take the time to gather diffs like I have tried to. BitterGrey (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's a huge difference between collecting a handful of relevant diffs in userspace in preparation for a full RFC, and writing a massive tract about a particular user on its own separate userpage. Wikipedia's general policies about content that's defamatory towards a named person do apply in your userspace, and everywhere else on the whole site. (Famously, Gwen Gale once deleted an entire AfD on grounds of BLP violations.)—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- That was a quote from Wikipedia policy (although the link needed fixing). Disagreements with it should be discussed there, not here.BitterGrey (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was a quote from a guideline, actually. BLP is policy, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- This reading of BLP makes it a form of diplomatic immunity: A living person would be able to produce an endless stream of sockpuppets, using them to promote himself and demote their competitors. Wikipedia readers would know only that Wikipedia agrees fully with that person. Wikipedia editors who knew better would be barred from ever mentioning the truth - it would be a BLP violation. Of course, this too is based on the mistaken assumption that this diff list is some attack against Cantor: It was actually started to explore the promotion of Cantor by another editor (who, to the best of my knowledge, is not Cantor). The only reason it might look like such is because that is what I found when looking into who was promoting Cantor. BitterGrey (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was a quote from a guideline, actually. BLP is policy, though.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- That was a quote from Wikipedia policy (although the link needed fixing). Disagreements with it should be discussed there, not here.BitterGrey (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's a huge difference between collecting a handful of relevant diffs in userspace in preparation for a full RFC, and writing a massive tract about a particular user on its own separate userpage. Wikipedia's general policies about content that's defamatory towards a named person do apply in your userspace, and everywhere else on the whole site. (Famously, Gwen Gale once deleted an entire AfD on grounds of BLP violations.)—S Marshall T/C 19:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have to disagree on multiple points. "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.". As for inviting others to contribute, the only invite I was able to get out before the deletion is here. Please note that there is no "except you" statement, and assuming one is yet another violation of good faith. That is also an example of my use of the list. I had hoped to use it conversationally on talk pages instead of building it up as some massive out-of-the-blue "attack". Less disruptive for Wikipedia, and less work for me. Given the multiple undiff'ed accusations that I had not planned to use the list above, I'll add a redundant and boldfaced link to that instance where the list was already used. I regret that others don't take the time to gather diffs like I have tried to. BitterGrey (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Its interesting that nobody has yet commented on the validity of the assertions. If it is true that Cantor's name cited in large part due to self-citations, then he might be guilty of a pretty severe WP:NOT violation; using Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. The proper thing to do with this evidence is to discuss its validity and whether or not he breached WP:NOT. Deleting the page without discussion of the evidence on it just serves to bury what might be legitimate criticism. FWIW I think the undeletion was a good move and the early closure of the MfD unjustified. ThemFromSpace 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's the province of Del Rev? That all disputes come here to be settled?. (Given the ARS template and its relatives, it does sometimes seem that way.) But FWIW, it seems WMC's recent edits have been to propose his work as sources on article talk pages. As I understand it, that's just what he's supposed to do. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- DGG: Didn't you say something about not discussing this further[37]?
- Themfromspace: The complication is that James Cantor couldn't have done it alone. There were others who noticed the pattern and could have kept Marionthelibrarion's edits in check if he did not have the assistance of others, including DGG. An example of the two "librarians" engaged in an edit war against a common foe is here[38][39][40][41][42]. That written, I don't know whether DGG's multiple nominations for deletion were to protect himself, Cantor, or the more involved editor who's recent edits triggered the list development. (Yes, all those who assumed the list was intended primarily as some attack against Cantor are wrong. Since Cantor's current behavior isn't bad and closely monitored, I'm not expecting any disciplinary action against him due to these past edits. A skeptical review of the fruits of what is now known to be self-promotion, perhaps, but not disciplinary action against Cantor.) BitterGrey (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's the province of Del Rev? That all disputes come here to be settled?. (Given the ARS template and its relatives, it does sometimes seem that way.) But FWIW, it seems WMC's recent edits have been to propose his work as sources on article talk pages. As I understand it, that's just what he's supposed to do. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question: To avoid the appearance of an attack, I excluded the name of the editor who's edits I was looking into from most comments on the list and most discussions about this list. (It was in the first version of the list, however, for 26 minutes[43]). He has not extended the same courtesy in the _two_[44][45] pages he is maintaining against me. Should I put it back in? BitterGrey (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well if I'm essentially being involved now, I might as well endorse deletion. The page had a collection of diffs mostly from 2008 and 2010 regarding conflict of interest in citing one's self. I fail to see their relevance now, particularly when the editor in question (James Cantor (talk · contribs)) is now scrupulously adhering to the kinds of guidelines found in WP:COS, [46], [47], to the point of bringing up his own conduct on COIN [48]. I'm frankly not sure what I'm doing there, since I have no conflict of interest regarding James Cantor or his organization. I don't see how the page can go anywhere seeing as it seems to be little more than either a list of people who, in the past, have cited James Cantor's work (and as Cantor is an expert in the areas his publications are added to, publishing in reliable sources - this is laudable, not a problem) or a list of people against whom Bittergrey has a grudge. Certainly there's nothing that would be useful in a RFC/U for a user's current conduct and many of the diffs in question are utterly unremarkable (such as James Cantor noting he is the current editor of a journal [49]). If the purpose of the page is to prove that James Cantor cites himself, that's also obvious, and no longer an issue (since he now obviously complies with WP:COS). If the purpose of the page is to prove that people cite James Cantor - that's obvious and unimportant unless there is somehow an assumption that citing James Cantor's work is inherently wrong. It's not, Cantor is a known expert in the field publishing in reliable sources. The page can never go anywhere that I can see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- WP:Kettle, WLU. You've been nursing attack pages against me for nearly a year[50][51]. As for Cantor, you responded to his post only after I commented on the article, and then only to express that you had not read the article but were determined to cite, even though you had not yet read it. Your exact words were "I'll read and integrate it." You didn't engage in the discussion (which was trending toward not to cite at all[52]) but edit warred to insert the citation in multiple places[53][54] with a new paragraph dedicated to Cantor[55]. Multiple editors needed to get involved to restrain you.
- Let's consider a more blatant example, Cantor's chapter in the Oxford textbook of psychopathology. It is a general article on the paraphilias, cited ten times in all of Wikipedia. WLU cited it NINE times [56][57][58][59][60]4x[61]. If this reference were truly that important, it doesn't make that no one else was citing it. (#10 is at Courtship_disorder, added by Cantor[62]).
- I would ask those reviewing the list to note that (unlike WLU's attack pages against me) I only had a few days to work on the list before the first deletion. I also focused initially on promotion away from the pages I was familiar with. One of the possibilities I was exploring was that WLU was only promoting Cantor to get revenge on me. It does seem that he only promotes Cantor in articles I've edited. BitterGrey (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- This is the page to discuss whether your subpage should be undeleted - not user conduct. Feel free to bring up my conduct at the appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- You argued that my list could never amount to anything, I countered by demonstrating that there was much I hadn't had a chance to include (it was effectively three days old) and that you had a conflict of interest in calling for its deletion. What you did not argue is why it is somehow wrong for me to spend a couple days on an objective history survey (so objective that most probably thought it was about Cantor instead) while you have been nursing two laundry lists of my every perceived wrong for months. These perceived wrongs include, among many many other things, my asking an admin for advice regarding your laundry lists[63]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is the page to discuss whether your subpage should be undeleted - not user conduct. Feel free to bring up my conduct at the appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Request: At only 71 hours old before the first deletion, that the subject of my survey was WLU was probably not clear at first glance. Now that it has been stated explicitly, could I ask all those who have not yet voted to restore my list of diffs to review the lists WLU has been maintaining against me for nearly a year[64][65] and restate their position? If he didn't want people gathering history on him, he shouldn't be gathering history on other people. BitterGrey (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] 13 February 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Based on coverage in mainline media outlets since 2008 (when three deletions of this page were done), this Living Person is clearly notable. I have added one source, from the Pop Music Critic at the San Francisco Chronicle, on the Nick Pitera Talk page. FULL DISCLOSURE: I have no connection whatsoever with this musical artist. I had just read about the guy in several places and was surprised Wikipedia had no article on the guy (with multiple albums and coverage in notable media), when Wikipedia has music-related articles on half the garage bands that ever released 50 copies of a self-burned CD. Would appreciate administrator review. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC) N2e (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 12 February 2012
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Non admin closure, it appears the closer quite simply counted votes and looked at the link bomb which was supplied by a keep vote. There are but one review for this book, as such it fails WP:NBOOK which is quite clear. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
[edit] 11 February 2012
[edit] Archive
| 2012 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2011 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2008 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2007 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2006 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
