Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:41, 26 April 2007

< April 25	Deletion review archives: 2007 April	April 27 >

26 April 2007

United States military aid to Israel

AfD was originally closed by Doc glasgow as a "keep". [1]. Shortly thereafter, Jayjg reversed the decision, and deleted the page, calling the previous close "nonsense" [2]. I believe both the decisions and the appropriateness of the reversal should be examined here. (For what it's worth, I strongly disagree with the unilateral reversal, and the discussion looks like a no consensus to me.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be undeleted for the DRV so I could actually see it? --Iamunknown 06:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just restored the AfD back to Doc's original closure and was about to place this on DRV before I saw that I was beaten to it, hehe. I just wanted to note that the AfD back to its original version, so it appears that the primary decision being discussed is Doc's, as Jay's edits should be rendered null and void gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I dunno, maybe overturn and delete? I don't see an obvious consensus in AfD, but its very hard to see the article as it stands in the final version as having slight OR issues and it isn't clear to me how listing weapons systems given to a country is somehow encyclopedic, so it isn't even clear to me that there is much worth merging to the main article. The article does also have a strong whiff of POV fork. If I had been the closing admin I probably would have closed it as delete. JoshuaZ 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. Unilateral overturning of close should be reverted. Discussion looks like it reached no real consensus. The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance. WjBscribe 06:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Merge. As WJBscribe said: "The best result is probably to merge some of the better content to Israel-United States relations but for that we need to preserve the history at United States military aid to Israel by turning it into a redirect for GDFL compliance."--Aminz 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir. No need to have a WP:POVFORK. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Delete. Since WP is turning into a battleground, I'd rather be counted as a "usual suspect". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Deleted (along with redirect and merge as appropriate) according to the clear consensus. Jayjg was correct that Doc Glasgow was mistaken to conclude the consensus was "keep" when there was a 69% consensus to delete. There were only 9 keeps against 20 deletes (this includes 11 "delete", 1 "redirect"--which is form of delete, 3 "delete and merge", 4 "redirect and merge", and 1 "delete, redirect and merge"). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- People who want things "merged" do not want them deleted, they want the content retained in another article. Apart from that, blind counting of votes in a fairly messy debate with several arguments such as this one is a poor way to close a decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. GFDL concerns have been raised; also, it appears to me to be a no-consensus keep, although I generally think those are cop-outs. Note, I love Jay's edit summary. Also the fact that overturning another admin's decision unilaterally is an edit marked 'minor'. Hornplease 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- just another sad example of Jayjg's sometimes destructive, irrational, and wayward editing habits. Also, it might be worth noting that not only does the U.S. have sway over questions relating to Israel's military, but sometimes the Israelis call the shots regarding the weapon systems in the U.S. For instance, Israeli military officials are trying to prevent the U.S. from selling armaments to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States -- see the NY Times abstract "Israel's Protests Are Said to Stall Gulf Arms Sale". --Wassermann 09:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Aminz.--MONGO 10:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Doc Glasgow's closure of keep (or "no consensus", it has little bearing). The article is not in great shape but the bulk of it is well-sourced so there was no need to try to overrule consensus or the lack of consensus in this case on the basis of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV (since facts and statistics are not inherently biased in an obvious manner). Several people argued for merging, several argued for outright keeping, several argued for deleting, but there was no clear conclusion from the debate. I cannot see that the debate could have been closed in any other manner, and calling the close "nonsense" is nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, endorse no consensus closure per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, rename and rewrite article. A patently irregular deletion, as documented above. I'm disappointed that nobody seems to have thought of a more creative solution. I believe this article would be better recast as US-Israel military relations, as a content fork of US-Israel relations, within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. There is certainly scope for a series of articles on bilateral US military relations with a whole range of countries, covering military alliances, military cooperation, military aid and so on. For instance, US-Iraq military relations could cover the US DOD's efforts to train and equip the New Iraqi Army, the ongoing military aid programme, the ground-level cooperation in building security and so on. In the case of US-Israel military relations, the existing article would have to be expanded to cover other issues such as joint technology development (e.g. Tactical High Energy Laser) and joint exercises such as the biennial JUNIPER COBRA exercises. I'm sure there's plenty of well-sourced material that could be added. -- ChrisO 11:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a good idea if done systematiclly. JoshuaZ 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep The delete votes generally came from the usual suspects who have for years engaged in biased editing with respect to Israeli issues. The merge and keep votes combined have much the better arguments. I think this subject is important due to the legal implications of the United States aiding actions by Israel which may violate international law, particularly the requirements for belligerent occupation. Fred Bauder 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure that it is really fair to label editors as "the usual suspects", especially when the same concerns exist for many of the keeps as well. Tewfik^Talk 16:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fred, let's not pretend you are being neutral. This is not the first time you turn WP into a battleground. You convinced me to change my vote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a lot of confusion here. Some people are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Doc's "keep" decision, and others are saying "overturn", meaning overturn Jay's "delete" decision. Some are using this as an opportunity to censure Jay, but this is not the appropriate place. Others are maligning the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them politically, but that's not appropriate on Wikipedia at all. Many are commenting more on the political situation ("Should we over/under-emphasize U.S. military support for Israel?") than the merits of the deletion, but I suppose that's inevitable. Also, alleged GFDL concerns are silly; there are no copyright issues with merging articles. It would be most helpful if commenters could comment solely on whether, based on the comments in the original AFD, the article should be deleted or kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon- whose GDFL concerns are silly? The concern is that Jayjg's close (which was orginially being discussed) calls for the merging of deleted content which we cannot do. There is only no problem with merging if the history of the page merged remains visible- usually done by redirecting it to the destination of the merge with the page history intact. WjBscribe 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with WJB here. Delete & Merge is not a tenable outcome for any debate, per GFDL concerns. Also, "Delete and suggest merging" is even worse: if the article is deleted, how can we expect that someone else will merge as was "suggested"? Mango juice^talk 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any useful information belongs in US-Israel relations, or perhaps a new United States military aid which could describe U.S. military aid to various countries. (Note that the military aid article is currently in awful shape.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep, as it was a notable subject matter with sources to verify it. I also sincerely hope that there is an investigation into Jayjg's actions regarding this AfD. Tarc 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse keep per above. I generally think the arguments for keeping were stronger (e.g. Mister.Manticore's). I strongly discount "delete and merge" comments as that's not really an option under current policy (edit history needs to be maintained), and that constitutes a LOT of the delete votes. The only other verbose delete vote is based on a false assumption of what keep voters would do in another hypothetical AFD. Closing this as a keep decision was the right call, and no meaningful reason for reversing that was given. It's also odd that an admin would suggest merging deleted content... just make it a redirect. --W.marsh 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think when people say delete and merge, they generally mean redirect and merge or mean merge but want their merge to count more as a delete than a keep. In any event, since it is agreed that an effectively identical merger that is GFLD compliant can occur by leaving the redirect it isn't clear to me why we should discount the people who said merge/delete. JoshuaZ 14:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, I consider them more "redirect" supporters than people who want an outright deletion. But they probably don't consider themselves that so it's iffy. --W.marsh 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Information could be supplied in the yet to be started United States military aid Hughey 14:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Keep is undeniably the incorrect result. However, there is enough argument here that I think a relisting and re-evaluation of community consensus is more appropriate than flat deleting. But there was a mistake in process here. -- Avi 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now started a United States military aid article that any useful information could be merged into. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep Fred Bauder said it better than I could. Also, reversing another admin's closing while calling it "nonsense" and marking it as a minor edit is disrespectful at best. Frise 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep - The United States' large and ongoing military support of Israel is eminently notable and certainly requires an article. This article may not be up to snuff yet, but it will get there. Deleting it won't help any. And I am really disappointed in Jayjg, not just for overturning Doc Glasgow's closure in an improper manner, but also for taking controversial actions in a subject matter he knows he doesn't have even the remote appearance of being unbiased in. --Cyde Weys 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep: The AfD was without consensus, so it should be kept. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion with all due respect to Doc, 70% in favour of deletion, redirect and merge satisfies the rough consensus specified in the AfD guidelines. In response to the comments declaring the topic enyclopaedic, I don't think that anyone disagrees. The problem is that this entry is merely an unsourced list, whose minimal encyclopaedic information already exists in the section of the same name in Israel-United States relations. Such aid is treated that way for other similar cases like Egypt, and there is simply no precedent for singling out one case. Tewfik^Talk 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A vote to merge is not a vote to delete... it's a vote to keep (the content). --W.marsh 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering all the delete & merges, it seems that the intent of the few redirect & merges to be the same. Tewfik^Talk 17:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the delete and merges are difficult to interpret since that's not a valid option. Nevertheless "merge" is interpreted as a keep vote at AFD... if people mean delete and leave a redlink where the article was, they need to say delete outright. --W.marsh 17:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's comments - I am quite annoyed about being reversed without any discussion whatsoever here. I'm puzzled how any objective person could have thought my close "nonsense", and I have asked the editor concerned for an explanation [3]. I'm always willing to reconsider closes if asked, which I was not here. I am sometimes wrong, and happy to think again. However, on reconsidering, I recount: 14 deletes, 9 keeps, 4 merges, and 3 'delete and merge' (huh? can't do that!). 14 d v 13 k/m; that's clearly not a consensus to delete (even if we took the 'delete and merge' as straight deletes) which defaults to keep. For clarity, I have added the 'no consensus' rationale for my keep call. As I indicated from the outset, merge is still a valid option for consideration by editors. I've no objections to a relisting if anyone thinks a consensus to delete can be gathered, but a decision by anyone to relist needn't have involved a DRV.--Doc^g 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further I've just noticed that one !voter chabged their vote after my closing [4]. So, my recount should have read 13 d vs. 13 k or m.--Doc^g 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original closure due to obvious lack of consensus. While I may have agreed with the delete !voters, any claims that the consensus was to delete are erroneous. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep as per Sjakkalle and Cyde Weys, V and Doc. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original closure as No Consensus, which appeared appropriate based on the discussion. I have no qualms with a later merge and redirect, if a suitable target can be found, but as has been noted there's no such thing as "delete and redirect". JavaTenor 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep Most of the participants in this debate were voting, not discussing. As for the arguments, no one was ever able to really explain how this is a POV fork (needing deletion) as opposed to a mere topic fork (per WP:SUMMARY), which is appropriate. Other delete arguments amounted to trying to make precedent out of the existence of other articles, very weak. Merge opinions made sense & were justified, but AfD doesn't have to serve as a referendum on merging vs. keeping. And a reminder: here, we are discussing the closure of the debate, not the merits -- we can always have another AfD (and it seems to be headed that way). Mango juice^talk 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Jayjg's spectacularly inappropriate closure, relist if necessary. When you want to challenge a result, you come to deletion review. You do not overwrite another sysop's opinions with your own. Picaroon 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both and merge Although there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (between the deletes, merges and "delete-and-merges") that having a separate article is POV-pushing. In addition, many of the arguments were of type "The US gives massive military aid to Israel," which is not a valid reason to keep. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vote was 21 who wanted the article gone versus 9 who wanted it kept, and the arguments in favor of deletion were, in my view, stronger in terms of policy. Marking this is a "keep", not even a "no consensus" was clearly some sort of error or oversight. Doc G had left for the day (and indeed did not return for another 12 hours), so I WP:BOLDly fixed the problem, though marking the edit as "minor" was accidental - I didn't realize I had done that. However, in hindsight my edit summary was aggressive and dismissive, and as a courtesy to Doc G, I still should have waited until he was back online and discussed it with him first. My apologies to Doc G for that.

Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an interest in a topical area is not a conflict of interest in that area. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cannabis

The policy cited as cause for deletion was that the article was not notable. The Wikipedia notability guidelines clearly state the basis for determining notability which the article met. It had multiple, non-trivial, arms-length citations. There were no arguments given, just "delete votes. The Administrator failed in their duty to assign proper weight in an objective manner to the issues as set out in the Wikipedia notability policy. Verne Andru 02:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's response: Guidelines guide participants (guide not instruct) - consensus and strength of arguments guide admins - there was a consensus to delete. Guidelines are not policy. --Doc^g 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "guidelines" state quite clearly that "votes" without any argument or reasons should not be considered when making a determination. As most of the "Delete" votes cited no reasons, they should not have been given any weight. When applying the guidelines in a fair and dispassionate manner, the "Delete" votes should not have been considered and the consensus was to "Keep" the article. Verne Andru 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, met standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Seeing as sources seem to have been added throughout the debate, and some people changed their mind, this deserves a run-through with all the information present, for the whole time. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)</S.[reply]

Endorse deletion per Joshua. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

relist per Armakov. The stupidity of the subject aside, it does make a claim to notability with the sources and the situation changed midway through. This is why admins aren't supposed to be robots when closing AfDs. JoshuaZ 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC) endorse deletion Having now gone through the claimed sources, almost all of them dont mention the person in question, they are of questionable reliability and not a single one is both indepedent and non-trivial. A relisting will result in the exact same result. Let's not waste our time. JoshuaZ 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, several arguments to delete were made later in the argument, and at least one specifically addressed (and rejected as insufficient) the sourcing added. Correct read of consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, no matter how many times you say, "these are sources, you can't ignore them", if the sources don't mention the character, then they are simply insufficient for establishing the notability of the character, and that argument was definitely raised at the AfD. Notability is not contagious; characters don't catch it from their authors or from the works they appear in. However, a non-notable character may still be relevant to (and thus worth mentioning in) an article about the author or the work. And the sources presented at the AfD do suggest that the author or the work might be notable. And, having given that very broad hint, Verne, I do hope you will keep our conflict of interest goidelines in mind. :) Cheers, Xtifr _tälk 07:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion While sources were provided, the ones that were actually available did not mention the character, but mentioned other things we are told are in some way related to the character. Xtifr put it best when he said "Notability is not contagious". I see no fault in how this debate was closed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Rebuttal The High Times, Skunk Magazine article and QsHouse radio show all explicitly mention the Captain Cannabis character by name, which is the criteria for being "non-trivial" according to Wikipedia guidelines, as well as the 420 comic book. All sources are arms-length, independent and reliable - High Times and Skunk Magazine being two of the most widely circulated publications to the market segment. Just because a source isn't available on the internet does not mean it does not exist. Verne Andru 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you think simply mentioning something automatically makes it meet the definition of non-trivial, there are trivial mentions, and non-trivial mentions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RebuttalThe criteria for "non-trivial" as defined in the Notability guidelines you used to open the charge against the article states very clearly that the threshold test for "non-trivial" is that the name of the item be referenced directly. That article further states the there is to be no subjectivity allowed in the decision and popularity is not to be taken into consideration. The citations, in 2 of the most widely subscribed publications, about Captain Cannabis and the comic book fully comply with the Wikipedia criteria to be deemed notable. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, the appellant has a clear conflict of interest, and the AfD looks valid, to me. Corvus cornix 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RebuttalWhile HighInBC has opened a charge against me for "conflict of interest," [plus just about every other charge he has been able to think up] this is an allegation and has not been determined at this point so this argument should be dismissed. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear in not precluding anyone from creating or adding to an article, as long as it meets the criteria of being written from a NPOV, is properly cited and is "notable" under the Wikipedia definition of those terms. I submit the article fully complies with Wikipedia standards and maintain I have no conflict of interest. Verne Andru 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as being well within guidelines and policy. Nom may stridently disagree with this assessment but that doesn't change the fact the consensus was to delete the article. I'd have agreed anyway, the sources were trivial at best. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal My submission is that, had the deleter complied with the guidelines and not given any weight to the "Delete" votes without argument, the consensus was to "Keep." I further submit your allegation that the sources "were trivial at best" is a "subjective" determination, something specifically precluded from consideration under the Notability article. When the Notability guidelines are applied consistent with the way they are written, I submit the article and its citations pass the threshold tests with room to spare. Verne Andru 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines at WP:N - "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content. It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source. I fail to see where, in the provided sources, "Captain Cannabis" was addressed as a subject directly and not as a passing mention. You may wish to read the footnote provided in the guideline, which makes it clear a one or two line mention does not qualify. No matter the reliability of the source if it does not amount to more than stating Captain Cannabis was a character in the comic, notability is NOT established. Please elaborate on your claim that the character passes threshold with room to spare. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration - Citations Thank you for pointing out the guidelines and providing an opportunity to elaborate. I have been reluctant to post this for fear of being charged [by HighInBC] with bias and had hoped another editor would have undertaken to reference the citation. I submit the following which were copied from the source articles and invite Wikipedia editors to embark on their own due-diligence to verify the veracity of this information.
SENSI SUPERMAN - High Times – February 2007 - BUZZ section, page 13
You think you’re smokin’ the good stuff? You’re ready to take the Sour Diesel and go head-to-head with the best of ‘em? Well, whatever strain you’ve got that’s burning a hole in your stashbag is nothing compared to the joint that the space aliens laid on Hal Lighter, the bud-bogarting roadie who stars in the new canna-comic entitled simply 420. After a chance meeting with an E.T.T [Extra-Terrestrial Toker] Hal samples some cosmic pot and, lo and behold, transforms into Captain Cannabis, a smoking superhero whose mission is “to stop a crazed global elite and their ‘machine of death’ from turning Earth into the ultimate PRISON PLANET.”
Vancouver B.C.-based artist Verne Andru envisions 420 as more than just a comic book. In fact, he’s working to turn the series into a full-length animated film. Comic and cannabis connoisseurs alike should visit CaptainCannabis.com for all the details.
420 – Verne Signature Series - Skunk Magazine – vol 2, issue 8 - COOL STUFF section, page 85
Be on high alert for this thirteen-part, non-poser, sci-fi comic book series by Hanna Barbera/Nelvana alumnus Verne Andru. Lebowski-esque rocker roadie Halburt “Hal” Lighter unwittingly and unwillingly embarks on a Dr. Hoolie-kinda trip when a toke of the REALLY good stuff presto-changos him into Captain Cannabis. Busty barmaid Marion and oKee the alien round out the unlikely evil-fighting threesome imparted with the task of saving the world from imprisonment and subjugation. And they do it with the power of weed, man! Just like Woody Harrelson!
And QsHouse, a Florida based radio show which complies with the definition of "media," aired a 1/2 hour show [5] which makes multiple mentions of Captain Cannabis. Verne Andru 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. WP:N's wording is under dispute, for good reason -- the notability of a subject as determined by its level of sourcing is judged on a case-by-case basis, and there was a pretty clear consensus that this subject doesn't cut it. Something not explicitly stated here, but very clearly part of this debate, was the concern about WP:VANITY / WP:COI, which will taint things a bit. A topic that has borderline notability will often be deleted if it exists because of a COI. This seems like a normal outcome for the debate. Mango juice^talk 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal I submit none of the editors voting to delete have done any due-diligence on the citations. The consensus was - if they couldn't find it on the internet, it didn't exist, a position which is also in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Until the 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC) post above was made, none of these deliberations have had the benefit of full disclosure of all pertinent citation data. The article used as the basis for deleting the article was Notability, not Conflict of Interest. To argue that the decision was made on a criteria other than that stated in the charges, argues that the proceedings were unfair and a full hearing was not given and argues against deletion. The Notibility criteria are quite clear in stating no subjectivity must be used in making a determination. Until the outcome of HighInBC's Conflict of Interest charges against me are decided, they remain allegations only and must not be used in any way as a weighting factor in these deliberations. Verne Andru 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think this is, a criminal court? Innocent until proven guilty? Due diligence? Sorry, the "laws" of Wikipedia will not support you where consensus did not -- Wikipediea doesn't have firm rules and in any case, we ignore them when the spirit isn't being upheld. Mango juice^talk 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it says right there in the nom that the article was created by the author of the book. WP:VANITY talks more about that issue, but the complaint is clear. Mango juice^talk 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued law before the BC Supreme and Courts of Appeal for 10 years and understand what comprises a good argument and a fair hearing. I also taught computer-sciences for 5 years in the College system, so I'm fully aware of what constitutes valid academic argument and procedures. What you're saying is "the rules are, there are no rules," which pretty much confirms my suspicions. It does a grave disservice to Wikipedia that such attitudes are allowed to prevail among it's editorial ranks. I have reviewed the guidelines on Vanity and Conflict of Interest and believe I have not run afoul with either. Everything I've written has been fully compliant with Wikipedia standards of being from a NPOV, properly cited and notable. The guidelines do not preclude anyone from providing contributions to Wikipedia as long as they are within the bounds of the guidelines. Verne Andru 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per JoshuaZ. Plus the fact that the nominator has responded to everyone's opinion, and invoked "I'm a lawyer so I'm right"; that is a huge red flag. -Amarkov moo! 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I can't add much to what's already been said, but I would point out to the author that repeated argumentations where you have a self-evident conflict of interest is almost always counterproductive. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal I did not invoke "I'm a lawyer so I'm right," [because I am not] I merely noted I understand what a fair hearing is and what it isn't based on first hand experience, and this doesn't come close.
Wikipedia has a systemic Conflict of Interest built into it that this case has been able to bring to light. Between your we ignore them rules and your Reward Board [6] editors can be put in a conflict of interest by accepting monetary recompense for their actions that, in this case, go against the interests of Wikipedia establishing itself as a credible academic resource. As there appears to be a clear consensus against this case - not based on its merits, I would like to stress - I would ask that you delete my name space once you have finished here. Verne Andru 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, AfD was properly conducted, weighed, and closed. Rationales for upheld deletion arguments were based on policies and guidelines, such as WP:RS (the lack of non-trivial mentions) and WP:COI (creator of article is creator of subject of article). No evidence presented here that shows otherwise or that shows the rationale for deletion was based on misinformation or incomplete information. Process correctly followed in this case. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 *Overturn Jayjg's spectacularly inappropriate closure, relist if necessary. When you want to challenge a result, you come to deletion review. You do not overwrite another sysop's opinions with your own. [[User talk:Picaroon9288|Picaroon]] 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn both and merge''' Although there was no consensus to delete, there was a consensus (between the deletes, merges and "delete-and-merges") that having a separate article is POV-pushing.  In addition, many of the arguments were of type "[[WP:ILIKEIT|The US gives massive military aid to Israel]]," which is not a valid reason to keep. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' The vote was 21 who wanted the article gone versus 9 who wanted it kept, and the arguments in favor of deletion were, in my view, stronger in terms of policy. Marking this is a "keep", not even a "no consensus" was clearly some sort of error or oversight. Doc G had left for the day (and indeed did not return for another 12 hours), so I [[WP:BOLD]]ly fixed the problem, though marking the edit as "minor" was accidental - I didn't realize I had done that. However, in hindsight my edit summary was aggressive and dismissive, and as a courtesy to Doc G, I still should have waited until he was back online and discussed it with him first. My apologies to Doc G for that.
+:Regarding the various people who are hinting or stating outright that I have some sort of conflict of interest, or shouldn't be able to make administrative decisions on wide areas of article topics, or, most bizarrely, that I have in the past "illegally" deleted articles, I note the obvious bias that many (though certainly not all) of them have expressed in these areas themselves, and point out that an ''interest'' in a topical area is not a ''conflict of interest'' in that area. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 ====[[Captain Cannabis]]====