User talk:Backslash Forwardslash

Thank you for your concern about our privacy. I am not sure I understand why other people can be found on wikipedia and I am not allowed to put this individual on wikipedia. I do think this person is notable enough in the medical world to warrant a wikipedia article, so would you you mind telling me why not other than privacy? She is a minor, but her parents have consented. thanks :)

Promotional Material???????

Please do explain what article this is on I am very confused!!! You sent me a message!!! Explain! Thanks :) --Jakingsbeer (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I warned you about linking to your website on your userpage. While we do have some leeway for regular editors, I felt it was a little to much like an advertisement. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonecrusher (Transformers)

I think we settled it, I changed my wording to mention both points of view. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think uKER fully agrees with you. If he wants it lifted too then I'll be happy to, but not just yet. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There are actually TWO disputes. One about a dog, and one obscure cameo. The one about the cameo is settleled, I believe, and it was between 4 editors, who each seemed to have their own take. I'll see if I can get an agreement among us on the one about the dog, or at least get more outside opinions. Mathewignash (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

List of....

Why would you delete the article List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties without putting the contents in the main article on the Highty-Tighties? The contents were referenced from the 120+ college yearbooks that I and others read through to get this information. There may not be a notable person in the list but the notable facts are the trends in number of members of the band and who the drum majors and captains where. This information doesn't exist anywhere else in the world in one place. It adds to the historical significance of the main article. Talk to GM 02:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was to delete, not merge. I'm happy to provide a copy of the article for you to incorporate into the main article, if you'd like. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Joker poster

Can you explain how the keep votes are "significantly weaker"? Thank you. APK say that you love me 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is a list of all the votes that contribution little or nothing to the discussion.

Keep. This article is now in a good condition.

Keep - High EV.

Keep Notabilty? ok! NPOV? ok! thus keep!

Keep, Political satire has always been permitted. Both parties and all Presidents are subjected to it. I do not see this as racial in any way shape or form. While I'd like to see it all stopped, that will never happen. So I guess it's fair game.

The rest of the keep votes simply stated that notability was passed, I think only one or two actually had anything substantial to say. Compared the the deletes (who did too have useless votes) the keeps stood significantly weaker. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The delete votes included the following rationale.

Trivial mentions. (There were news articles specifically about the poster, so what's the definition of "trivial"?)

per WP:OR and WP:N (How is it original research?)

lack of notability (Above, you said "keep votes simply stated that notability was passed". Does the rule same apply when people simply state notability is lacking?)

per WP:N (Same as above.)

per moral equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT (The reasoning is intended for biographical articles.)

suspected article, also WP:NEO (What does "suspected" mean? How does Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms apply to the article?)

More anti-Obama POV pushing. (No reasoning and our site is not censored.)

WP:NOTNEWS (It was the account's first and only edit.)

Notability doesn't mean "mentioned on the interwebs" (Comparing apples to oranges. The Obama poster has received mainstream news coverage.)

Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. (See above.)

WP:NOTNEWS (The poster has been the subject of news coverage for more than one reason. See below.)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM (See below. The second link is an essay.)

Not nowhere near important to be on Wikipedia. (No reasoning.)

In regards to those who used WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N as reasons to delete (as I previously mentioned) the poster is not an event and multiple reliable sources have reported on the poster's initial discovery, the person who created the poster, flickr removing the image from its site, and the image's usage by anti-Obama demonstrators.

Five of the thirteen votes can be discounted (no reasoning, they don't like the article, single-purpose vote, etc.) There are at least a dozen keep votes with valid rationale as opposed to the remaining eight delete votes citing WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. APK say that you love me 03:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not a subject passes notability, or is a news item is dictated by consensus. Simply by having one person offer their view on WP:NOTNEWS does not nullify those using it as a rationale. Simply stating an article passes/fails WP:N is also weak, as you'd agree, in that respect I found the arguments made by the keep voters less substantial and less convincing.

Interestingly enough, there were a contingent of editors who suggested the article be merged. The Joker poster does get a mention in Public image of Barack Obama, so I'm not sure if you can say the closure was against their wishes as well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I skipped the merge votes since you had only compared the deletes vs. keeps. May I ask, in your view, how did the article fail WP:N criteria? Gracias. APK say that you love me 04:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would've said that merging is correct simply because it does deserve some mention, just not a whole article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a copy of the deleted article? APK say that you love me 05:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:AgnosticPreachersKid/Barack Obama Joker poster. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:N states that "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion", and that a consensus to the contrary is required to overturn this presumption. There is substantive coverage (articles devoted entirely to the poster) in countless reliable sources (LA Times, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, CNN, etc) referenced in the article, and there most certainly was not a consensus that the article fails any of the WP:NOT criteria. The strongest argument against the article is WP:NOTNEWS, but opinion on that matter was far from unanimous: as was repeatedly pointed out, the article was not about the one-off event of some posters appearing in LA, but about the poster being a turning point in public attitude and adopted as a symbol of notable protest movement.

Also, I find it bizarre that you are discounting the Keep comments because they're all about WP:N — the proposer's rationale for deletion was that the poster is not notable, so of course people are responding to that! As pointed out above, the other reasons given for deletion (WP:OR, WP:NEO, WP:ONEEVENT) are spurious.

So please reconsider, or I will be requesting a formal review. Jpatokal (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Votes that failed to substantiate on why the topic was or was not notable were weak and were not as influential as a vote that illustrated clearly why the subject was or was not notable. Consensus is not influenced by the sheer number of votes, and I found that the those wanting deletion did a better job of illustrating why the article was not notable. Even still, the argument surrounding WP:ONEEVENT was not countered effectively, and can hardly be dismissed as spurious.

If you want to take it to DRV be my guest, but my recommendation is that you focus on improving the section at Public image of Barack Obama. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:ONEEVENT? It's about people notable only for one event, and while an excellent argument against giving Firas Alkhateeb his own article, is irrelevant to an artwork. You might also like to review the essay Wikipedia:WI1E, where an event is defined as "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end", again inapplicable to an artwork. Jpatokal (talk) 09:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion. Others in that discussion disagreed. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I found possible sources and added them here. APK say that you love me 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but you are still making the same strawman arguments now that others were in the AfD. It isn't about sourcing, just as "Michelle's arms", "Obama's fly-swatter", "Obama's teleprompter", and probably a few others I'm forgetting weren't about sourcing. Sourcing is a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the examples you gave (which I assume are now deleted articles), but I'm not suggesting the amount of sources is the only reason the subject is notable. It's notable because of the initial international news coverage, the free speech controversy that led to Flickr changing its takedown policy, and the image becoming a standard protest sign. Also, the first four paragraphs in this Los Angles Times article clearly states why the artist is notable. APK say that you love me 13:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: 2010 Formula One season.

As per Talk:2010 Formula One season#Campos/Manor again, a dispute over multiple conflicting sources from the same date has been able to be corrected following the finding of a newer source, and there now appears to be consensus to use this source. Therefore I'd like to ask that the article be unprotected so that these corrections can be made and the article can be further edited once more. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 05:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the efforts in reaching a consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 64

I notice that the AfD has been closed but there is no old AfD notice on the article talk page. Would you do the honours? Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Barack Obama Joker poster

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barack Obama Joker poster. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jpatokal (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)