Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7

7 November 2007

Category:Erdős numbers

Category:Erdős numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CFD)

Please see for example Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Reasons_to_reverse_the_deletion, where a long discussion is at the top of the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. A user has organized some discussion, and salvaged some of the lost data, at User:Mikkalai/By_Erdos. Note that related categories were deleted also, e.g. Erdos Number 2, Erdos Number 3 etc. There is a huge discussion spread over talk pages at many articles. There seems to be divergence between editors, who voted to delete (in the third attempt), and mathematicians who consult Erdos Numbers. Thank you. Pete St.John 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Also see the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. At the last discussion over deletion 11 contributors voted Keep (or strong keep) and 5 (plus one anonymous IP address) voted to delete. When Kbdank71 announced the result (delete) he said "...delete. I honestly don't have time to explain every reason why..." (In all fairness, he then explained that in his opinion the reasons to delete were better than the reasons to keep). At the time some of us (who only learned about the deletion when the bot was triggered) felt rail-roaded. Be that as it may, in response to subsequent criticism he gathered the reasons to delete at this log, which since then has acquired rebuttals; however, rebutting reasons to delete is not the same as reasons to have the category, which I tried to synopsize at the math project talk page. Each of the 11 "keep" votes gives reasons at that link, of course. Pete St.John 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer per my explanation Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28. --Kbdank71 18:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closer's interpretation of the discussion was correct. No substantial argument has been provided that Erdős numbers are in any way a defining attribute and not just the mathematical research equivalent of the Bacon number (i.e. a statistical curiousity which may or may not imply certain things about specific people). The two options offered at the post-close discussion seem more viable: create and maintain a sourced list or add an optional parameter to {{Infobox Scientist}}. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Regardless if the categories are kept or deleted, I'd like to see both those options implemeted. - jc37 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse a deletion review Overturn. I'm not a practicing mathematician, but I find the number useful. Though mathematicians as a group do not have a particularly extravagant subculture, it is important to respect what subcultural quirks they have. I thought the deletion was rather odd when I heard about it. --Pleasantville 18:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  I could be mistaken, but based on your comments, I think you wanted to "overturn"? (Endorse/overturn refers to the original discussion, not the DRV nom.) - jc37 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Revised. I was confused by the way things were phrased. Maybe the intro could be clarified?--Pleasantville 19:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  "I find the number useful" seems to be an argument to give at the CFD, not the DRV. --Kbdank71 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse of EN 1 and 2. Endorse of EN 3 and higher - As I noted elsewhere, it's been shown in previous CFD discussions that the lower numbers (1, 2 and at most 3), are the ones of value. The reason for Weak endorse of 1 and 2, is that making this a list would enable references to show how this person actually has such a number. So even if these categories are kept, I would strongly suggest that such a list be made to complement/support the categories. - jc37 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I dropped a note at Jc37's talk also, and will post a clarification of "endorse vs overturn" at the wikiproject:mathematics talk page. Pete St.John

Thank you for your concern, but I (hopefully) posted what I inteded to. Though you're right that I'm wobbling the fence when it comes to #s 1 and 2, though more due to previous CFD discussions than the one this DRV refers to. Hence why it's Weak endorse, instead of Weak overturn. I didn't see the closer mention that he was taking the previous nominations in consideration when closing. - jc37 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion for EN 1,2,3. This is a verifiable, well-known part of the mathematical culture and a measure of the cooperation. Mathematicians proudly report their EN. This number is not as arbitrary as laymen might think: Erdos has over 500 co-authors, beating any other by a wide-wide margin, so he is a natural "center of condensation", unlike the stupid copycat Bacon game. As it was already mentiojned, the category is easier to maintain that the list: this info may be more readily update in the bio article, which is watched by interested persons. `'Míkka 19:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per ongoing discussion. I respect Kdbank71 and do not question his intentions, only the fact that I believe his decision was (intentionally or not) more of an executive decision then an assessment of consensus. There is a lengthy discussion, which I will not attempt to recreate or reiterate to contextualize my opinion here, but I will again say that I express my opinion here with all due respect for Kdbank71 (and others). --Cheeser1 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Week Endorse A distinction needs to be made between the concept of Erdos numbering and the actual listing of each mathematicians number. The former is clearly notable the latter less so. I feel that some of the keep votes are using the notability of the former as a reason to keep the latter. My second concern is the source used to find many of these numbers, namely the AMS Collaboration Distance which is algorithmically generated. As such I don't think it provides notability for an individual authors number. For some authors there are third party sources, such as the authors web-site or The Erdos Number project, use of these sources would have greater notability claim. But I feel that calculating the number from AMS when the author does not even bother to list it is pushing encylopedic value. There is also a small technical problem as to the fact that the AMS site only provides a greatest upper bound on the number as its possible that there are paper not included in the database which provide a shorter path. Another problem is if we take these numbers to their logical conclusion using AMS data and the fact that 50% of mathematicians have an EN of 5 or less, that would make the categories very large with in the order of 850 articles in EN4[1]. I've not been convinced by arguments for notability, Rubin claim of a high correlation with field medalists in the CFD is interesting, from [2] they are all in the first 50% 11 with EN2,18 (EN3), 16 (EN4), 2 (EN5), maybe this is due to the fact that fields medalists probably publish more than average, but this is analysis better suited to the Erdos number page than the category. Personally I don't think is a particular useful measure, it favors mathematician in particular field and time span, and for a large part the numbers are fairly randomly distributed. So basically I think the debate is WP:ILIKEIT vrs WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the categories will always be incomplete and sometimes inaccurate and possibly become unworkable, and there are many other better measures of a mathematicians worth. --Salix alba (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion per ongoing discussion. This is a useful category, for many reasons, explained in detail in the Cfd debate. It is especially useful for editors who contribute to biographies of mathematicians and scientists, as a means to ascertain (very roughly) how close said mathematician or scientist is to combinatorics and graph theory (the subjects Paul Erdős mostly contributed to), and as a navigational tool. The fact that there are so many references out there to this subject, and even a niche in the literature devoted to studying the Erdős collaboration graph (the graph to which this category pertains, after all), should give some added weight to this argument. Turgidson 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion The record shows that the closing admin's action simply did not reflect a consensus. The weight of consensus had not shifted against the categories since the two previous attempts to get rid of them. Ntsimp 21:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn for EN 1, 2, and 3. I did not see a consensus for deletion based on the strengths of arguments, but rather the strenuous repetition of the same arguments by a few discussants. However this may be, from the CfD discussion it is evident that even among the proponents of deletion, more than a few favoured keeping the categories for the lower numbers. The information is verifiable, and better maintainable by using categories than using lists. To non-mathematicians this may be considered trivia, but mathematicians who have a low Erdős number cherish it with pride.  --Lambiam 21:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Black Falcon; this is trivial like astrologic sign and other things that may mean more to more people - and people with Erdos # X -like Bacon # X - have nothing really in common with each other. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well no, it's not trivial, and yes, authors who coauthor with so-and-so do have something in common, which is relevant to mathematicians, but all that has been re-rehashed. I really just want to point out that actually, there is a category "astrological signs" as notice under Taurus. It certainly matters very little to me; astrology has been divorced from science for something like 300 years. But as you point out, it matters to lots of other people, who mostly keep to themselves, so I can abide it. Can't you? Pete St.John 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion Mathematicians think Erdos numbers are interesting. There is even some bibliography and serious research on the topic: The Mathematical Intelligencer: vol. 21, no. 3 (Summer 1999), 51–63 and it has been also useful for studies on collaboration among mathematicians and research on small world social networks regarding their degrees of separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Requiemdirge (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. My support for the categories mirrors what Míkka wrote, but my real problem is the lack of process. 11 people (vs. 5) explained that they felt that the category should be kept, and that's significant. Many good reasons were given, despite the badgering of the original nominator. Even if those who wished to delete increased threefold the result should not have been delete -- just "no consensus". Beyond all that, though, the categories were useful and added to the encyclopedic value of the articles. (I won't even bring up notability -- the sheer volume of papers written on the subject easily suffices, and sufficient mention of this exists on the original AfD.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak overturn I kind of agree with Kbdank71 that the arguments to delete were better, but even with discussions not being a vote, it's uncustomary to delete in the face of a 5-11 count in the absence of unusual circumstances such as single-purpose account !votes. "Delete arguments are better" is not easily distinguished from "I personally think the category should be deleted". I will probably vote to delete in the second round. Erdős numbers are fun to talk about but no one is suggesting that the information shouldn't be here, just that the category system is not the appropriate medium for it, which I think is probably true. --Trovatore 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I must admit to some confusion: at first I assumed this was Category:Wikipedians by Erdős number, which I'm further surprised to see hasn't been deleted yet. Anything less than the median is of some signifance, and is going to be more material to a person's notability than the endless "ethnic" categories that people seem to delight in adding -- which generally have precisely none. Alai (E#5, btw.) 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion at least for Erdős numbers 1, 2 and 3, as per Lambiam. Gandalf61 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. I have closed several debates against the votecount myself, sometimes even blatantly so; when I do that though, I try to carefully craft the closing statement, and its foundation on relevant policies, practices and precedents. Sorry, but "because I think side X had better arguments" doesn't cut it for me. Having read the debate, especially the discussion, I see many valid and coherent arguments in favor of the keep, validly dismissing the claims that Erdos numbers are just trivia. Yes, there were many WP:NOTAGAIN !votes on the keep side, but also many WP:PERABOVE !votes on the delete side; but in total, I don't see how this could be closed as anything else but "no consensus". Preserving only 1-3 is a viable option in my opinion, but AFAICT this idea emerged only at this DRV, thus it's possibly out of DRV's scope (though we're not bureaucracy) Duja► 12:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion. There was lots of evidence that the subject of Erdős numbers was notable, and no argument on that point as plentiful references were produced to papers and other publications which discussed Erdős numbers and the graphs derived from them; but there as no evidence that the Erdős number of an individual was anything other than a point of trivia widely regarded with in the mathematical community as a joke, and in no way a "defining characteristic" of a mathematician per WP:CAT. (Repeated requests for evidence of Erdős numbers being used as a defining characteristic by official academic publications (rather than on individual's homepage etc) produced only one example, in which they were described as "silly"). The failure of many "keep" !voters to acknowledge the difference between on one hand the notability of the topic as a whole and on the other hand the question of whether an individual's Erdős number is a "defining characteristic" was one of the major reasons why the debate became so heated. Further discussion on the talk page after the CfD closed exposed further fundamental problems with categorisation by Erdos number, including that:
  1) there is no consensus on the definition of an Erdős number (whether it should be restricted to collaboration in mathematical papers or extend to all scientific papers or even to all academic papers)
  2) the mathscinet database regularly claimed as a reliable source can validate only the first definition of an Erdős number, which is not the definition used in the head article Erdős number
  3) Other assessments of an individual's Erdős number amount to original research.
  Some contributions to this DRV claim or imply that the views of mathematicians are more important in a deletion discussion related related to mathematics than those on non-mathematicians, a principle which would set a far-reaching precedent. Will admins closing future debates be expected to try to verify the professional credentials of individuals who are all entitled to anonymity? Or do we continue the existing practice of treating all wikipedians as rational editors who can weigh the evidence offered by those claiming expertise in a particular subject, by verifying the evidence against reliable sources?
  The closure of this debate as "delete" would be wrong if WP:CAT accepted that a widespread joke was grounds for categorisation, but unless and until WP:CAT is changed in such a fundamental way, there were only two ways to close this debate: by making a headcount and saying "keep", or by measuring the arguments against wikipolicy and saying "delete". Kbdank71 was quite correct to choose the latter, and the existence of a campaign amongst a few mathematician wikipedians to attack the decision does not alter existing policy. I suggest that before closing this deletion review, a check is made for the extent of canvassing; I have seen some, but have no idea how widespread it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Medical schools in California

Category:Medical schools in California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Category was deleted on grounds of overcategorization, but the category is useful as the overall status of medical education in California is contributing to a developing, well-documented health care crisis in the state, which all of these articles can be seen in light of or in reference to: [3], [4], [5], [6]. I have no problem with state-by-state categories of medical schools, nor with a US categorical list, as all these schools respond to both local and national health care problems. Amerique^dialectics 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. Nothing wrong with the close. --Kbdank71 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse merge. I agree that there is a health care crisis, but it is not just in California, and this is not grounds to keep this category. The problem is throughout the entire country. There is an anticipated doctor shortage in the upcoming years, which is why there are new medical schools appearing, and the existing ones are expanding their class sizes throughout the country. I also dispute Amerique's claim that the category has utility with regard to the role of medical schools in the health care crisis (though this should not be a deciding factor in categorization). A medical school in California is no different than a medical school in any other state in the country. It might be true that most practicing physicians in California graduated from a California medical school, but doctors who graduated from schools in other states (or countries) also practice in California, too. Since there are no real differences between medical schools in all of the states, there is no need to categorize on the basis of state, as evident by no other categories of medical schools in a given state. The only potential reason to subcategorize by state is if the parent category (Category:Schools of medicine in the United States) becomes overpopulated - which won't happen anytime soon. Even if there were a category called "Health care crisis in California," I do not think medical schools should be in this category, or that "Medical schools in California" should be a subcategory. Since there is not and should not be a category for "Health care crisis in California," there is no reason to have "Medical schools in California" solely to represent its potential role in the health care crisis. --Scott Alter 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict, reply to Scott Alter) The important difference is not in the education received at these schools, but the situational context each are set in as institutions, which is largely determined by state demographics rather than by national priorities. The media reports on medical education on a state-by-state basis, why shouldn't WP have a category that makes articles on medical education easier to navigate on a state-by-state level? (If it's an issue, I'll volunteer to develop state-by-state categories of med schools., but this may take awhile.) Amerique^dialectics 19:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with your statement that "media reports on medical education on a state-by-state basis." In the 4 articles you mentioned, the first three reported on allied healthcare workers in California, noting the shortage of "pharmacists, dental hygienists, respiratory therapists and other health-care workers." There was no mention of a physician shortage in these articles. On the contrary, the fourth article you referenced commented on medical schools nationwide. Can you give me an example of differences in education based on state-based situational context? As far as I am aware, all US medical schools follow the same criteria for curriculum development, as set forth by the LCME. I think medical education is uniquely national in nature, as there is one common national licensing exam (unlike other professional tracts, such as business and law). Also, all other healthcare providers take local exams, which does vary by state (and within a state). I still fail to see how dividing the category by states will improve navigation. I think having 45 categories, each with somewhere between 1 and 14 articles, would hinder navigation. (5 states have no medical schools.) The list of medical schools in the United States is much easier to navigate by state than 45 additional categories. --Scott Alter 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was just looking at that list... I had to search around to find it. The "national-level" approach to addressing medical education is determined by the aggregation of local-level health concerns and priorities. The new medical school at UCR is being developed with local and state issues in mind. [7] I'm not saying there is a difference in accreditation requirements between states, or that the national-level list should be abolished, but that there was no need to get rid of a useful category for browsing medical institutions by state. Amerique^dialectics 20:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• There are also a ton of other references here:[8] Amerique^dialectics 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue with you about whether local or national issues shape medical education. In reality, it is a combination of both, but I'm not going to try to figure if it is more national or state. My opinion is that there is not enough difference in medical education by state to warrant division into separate categories. If you believe medical education in California is so special and unique when compared to the rest of the country, I implore you to create Medical education in California or Medical school in California. Then, I'd consider separating the category by state on this basis. Currently, I have not read anything on Wikipedia to claim there is any difference in education by state. --Scott Alter 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment as closer. The agreement at the discussion was that subcategorisation of Category:Schools of medicine in the United States by US state, while logical, is premature at this point. All of the articles still appear in at least one of the subcategories of Category:Education in California. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For each medical school article I come across, I try to make sure they all are in several hierarchies of categories besides being in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. These include the parent university (if applicable), education in given state (which the parent university may be in), and a physical location (which the parent university may be in). This should ensure that the medical school articles are everywhere they belong and navigatable from several starting points. --Scott Alter 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • They mostly seem to connect to Category:Education in California via categories for the parent universities (see [9] for the list of articles). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Without speaking to this particular question, is there sentiment at CFD against subcategorization by US state unless we can do all fifty, or what? California is 12% of the US population and has more people than Canada. As a general rule I would expect that any category would start with a subcat for California followed by New York and Texas simply because there are more people, more schools, more anything in those states. According to the Google cache, there were 9 schools in this category -- not an overwhelming number, to be sure, but my mental peg for a category breakout is around the magic number 7 (as testing shows that's the typical number of items a person can keep in their head at any given time). --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not that I'm aware. It seems to be more a question of when subcategorisation becomes justified. It is clearly justified when the subcategory is based on a substantially distinct defining attribute (e.g. having Category:American political scientists as a subcat of Category:Political scientists) and/or when a category becomes overpopulated. Whether location in California, as opposed to location in the US more generally, is defining for medical schools is one of the issues being discussed above. As for the second instance, different editors subscribe to different cutoff points, although 200 (after which the contents are no longer displayed on one page only) seems to be taken as the clearest indication. My personal threshold is significantly lower (50-100, depending on the topic), but that of the discussants apparently was not. I personally wouldn't mind having a California-specific category in this case, but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to post an objection against what was (at the time) unanimous support for merging. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • For any subcategorization by state, I think it should be all or none. I am a big proponent of consistency in categorical hierarchies. There are currently 114 articles in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, with a potential of 155 articles (1 for each med school in the country + List of medical schools in the United States). If broken down by state, there would be between 0 and 14 articles per category with an average of 2.5 (114 med schools/45 states with med schools). 2.5 articles per category are too few. 114 (even 155) articles are not too many. This is second reason I am in support of keeping one category (the other reason above). --Scott Alter 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've said before I'm willing to help out with that. I may not be clear on the guiding logic on WP governing the use of categories. To me, a category would be useful even if it were only composed of one item, as a reader would then know "that's it" as far as, say, how many or what med schools are in a given state. I'm not seeing how "too many" or "too few" items per category on WP affects whatever the statistical reality happens to be in fact. We're only talking about how to represent and make accessible the information here, and a state-by-state categorical sorting would not be a bad thing, in addition to the national categorical sorting. Amerique^dialectics 21:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The issue is not the work to potentially be done (if I thought it was appropriate, I'd do it myself), but I do not think it is appropriate to do so. After going through WP:Overcategorization, here are the many points this category violates:
  1. Non-defining or trivial characteristic (To me, the differences by state are insignificant. You seem to object to this.)

I most definitely object to this, especially as concerning state-supported public medical schools. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Intersection by location (Inappropriate to categorize based on location alone.)

In which case, why have a Med schools in the US category at all? Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Narrow intersection (Categories would have 2.5 articles on average.)

If this is some kind of universal content guideline on WP, I'm willing to go along with it and not object to an argument that "med schools in states with fewer than 2.5 med schools should not be categorized according to the states they are in," but that would still seem to leave room for categories of med schools in states with over 2.5 institutions, right? Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Small with no potential for growth (It is unlikely that there will many new medical schools opening in the future. I know of a couple that have opened or will open soon, but not enough to drastically change these numbers. The potential for growth is nearly 0.)

WP's content navigation system, which categories are a specific element of, should reflect reality and make content accessible according to how people may be searching for data. As health education disparities (in the articles I linked to above) tend to be discussed on a state-wide level, in addition to on a national level (these discourses are often cross-referenced), state-level categories are not inappropriate and are further useful for making comparisons between states. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Mostly-overlapping categories (It seems like you would still would want the articles to be in Category:Schools of medicine in the United States. This should definitely not be done (per the first line of Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories).)

Per the second line of that page: However there are some articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Based on any of these alone, Category:Medical schools in California would be considered overcategorization. --Scott Alter 22:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we obviously disagree on that, but I'm willing to let the community decide on it. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse merge. I see nothing wrong with the close of this debate which was in line with consensus. Nor are there any substantial policy reasons to overturn it and allow the category to continue. What is fundamentally different about medical school in California compared to, say, Texas? Sam Blacketer 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about process, the process by which the deletion occurred is fine with me, the issue is whether state-by-state categories for med schools are somehow "overcategorical." I'm not and never have argued that there are differences in accreditation standards between states. I am arguing that simply having state-derived categories of med schools makes it easier to browse such easily relatable information from each article, rather than having to parse through the Category:Schools of medicine in the United States, which is alphabetically by school rather than by state, or find list of medical schools in the United States, which I have no problem with, but I also don't see how state-organized categories present any special problem either. To me, Category:Medical schools in California is the first step at making list of medical schools in the United States more navigable within states from an article by article level. Amerique^dialectics 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Save us 222

Save us 222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save us.222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save Us.222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save Us.X29 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

SAVE US.222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Save Us 222 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There's some controversy on Chris Jericho's Wikipedia page about people constantly adding information about his rumored return. These "Save_Us.222" promos have been airing on WWE programming for 2 months. I created the Save Us 222 page with the hopes of providing information on the topic but it was quickly up for deletion. While I understand Wikipedia is not meant for speculation or rumors, the promos are a huge storyline...At the very least, I suggest at least redirecting the "Save_Us.222" page to either Chris Jericho or WWE so that people stop creating this page. I think WWE fans are coming to Wikipedia looking for answers about this storyline, and a redirect page would probably deter users from recreating a speculation page. 68.55.189.254 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE There also is User Save Us.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) -- Jreferee t/c 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have any news sources run stories on Save Us 222? -- Jreferee t/c 06:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• None that I have heard from, other than on the wrestling insider sites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rederick (talk • contribs)
• There has been gobs of coverage on professional wrestling web sites, which should always be taken with a pound of salt. Most of these sites have no journalistic integrity, deal in rumors and speculation, and just as often make stuff up and rip off more credible sites than care about accuracy. There are two or three reliable pay sites out there with some general journalistic standards that have done reporting on the issue (pwinsiderelite.com, for instance), but none have been able to say that the videos definitely represent Jericho (and even if they could, it would be off un-named sources), nor have any definitively reported on a return date (and all the rumored return dates, at least four so far, have passed). I have never seen any legitimate, non-wrestling related coverage of the campaign, which is really quite minor in scope (one muddled less-than-30 second commercial per WWE program, and now t-shirts, apparently). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• keep deleted and then redirect to the wrestler linked to it once it is revealed I've made my reasons very well known since I was one who proposed the deletion of this page. Saying that Chris Jericho, or anyone is speculation, and redirecting to Chris's or anyone elses page is also considered speculation. This will no longer be the case when the person behind the videos is known. --Raderick 06:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• With every single instance of anyone creating a save_us.222 page, it has always been nothing but speculation and ham-fisted fan analysis, and there has never been one bit of verifiable third party sources. WWE has never said the save_us.222 promos are for Jericho, and despite doing a nationwide book tour and numerous media appearances, Jericho has never said that he is connected to the campaign, nor that he is even returning for sure (although most fans, including this one, believe otherwise). There has never been any notable independent third party media coverage of the commercials. And because of over zealous fans who have no concern for our policies on original research and verifiability, the article on Chris Jericho has had to be protected (with the exception of a day or two where I mistakenly thought I could give folks the benefit of the doubt) since September 22 because of this issue. The only thing that will be served by unprotecting these pages will be creating a mass forum of terrible analysis and rumors. The only thing that can even be verifiably stated on the campaign is "Save_us.222 is a series of viral commercials started by WWE in September." Thats it. Wikipedia is not a rumor board, we have policies for this kind of thing for damn good reason. No redirects, no recreations, leave salted for the good of the Encyclopedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until such time as something is actually confirmed about the whole thing. At the moment, there's zero documented information about this campaign; the wrestling gossip sheets have tied it to Jericho, but knowing the WWE, it could turn into just about anything before it wraps up. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and SALT all attempts at recreation - Serious OR issues over a viral marketing campaign that has no notability claim. -- Gogo Dodo 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and come back here with an article in userspace before another end run around the community's decision. Carlossuarez46 22:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salting; eventual creation of a redir page to whoever it turns out to be; all per Raderick and Gogo Dodo. --Orange Mike 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)