Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:26, 23 October 2006

< October 17	October 19 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

18 October 2006

Angry Nintendo Nerd

The AfD discussion closed with no consensus, yet the article was kept deleted. I have some new information, as well as a problem with how the discussion was interpreted.

1. After having read through the entire thing, it seems that the main argument made by those in favor of deletion was that it is not significant outside of a specific community (namely the gaming community). Surely following this criteria would result in the deletion of at least half of Wikipedia articles. There are plenty of articles whose specific interest is not only limited to the gaming community, but to the community of one particular game. See Leeroy Jenkins or the numerous articles on popular Starcraft players.

2. The other crux that the deletion argument rested on was the 'unverifiability' factor. It is true that at the time, the article's proponents could not find any genuine news publications referring to the phenomenon. I have a problem with this criteria. The mainstream news media cannot be expected to cover every internet meme, and they are notoriously slow to do so even when they do. They took several months with "Numa Numa" - they usually do it when it becomes nothing short of a global explosion. Is it such a huge surprise that most of the references to internet memes are made on -gasp!- the internet? It's one thing to rely on forums or websites for information and claims. That's obviously risky. But it's another thing to see that a particular topic keeps popping up again and again on all sorts of popular forums and in different languages (see the original deletion review for those references) just to establish that it is indeed popular with a certain community. The Google Test should be enough to establish notability with regard to Internet memes, due to the very nature of an internet meme. Regardless, I've found two references to Angry Nintendo Nerd that do not come from forum threads. Of course, the people who deleted the article probably won't settle for anything less than Time or Newsweek, but here goes:

http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2006/07/11/4cr-interview-angry-nintendo-nerd/

http://www.ghacks.net/2006/08/15/angry-nintendo-nerd-videos/

3. This is becoming a serious problem on Wikipedia that I think needs to be addressed on a global scale, with an entire discussion devoted to the topic. I'm talking, of course, about the flame wars that break out over the addition of Internet Memes. It seems many editors seem to think that Wikipedia should only contain information on serious and useful topics, and go around deleting pages that they know nothing about, such as deleting a band page or an internet meme just because they haven't heard of it. Of course, this is to some extent necessary to keep out articles for no-name bands or internet videos that no one has seen other than the creator and their friends. But there are mountains of proof that a startling majority of Wikipedia editors (or at least the ones with influence) are hopelessly out of the loop and should not presume that they know what's popular from what's not. It took months of struggle to get the Chuck Norris facts to have even a brief mention in the Chuck Norris article. Now the phenomenon has its own well documented and excellent page, but at least a year after the phenomenon had peaked. The article for Talk Like a Pirate day was repeatedly deleted even though there was a link to send e-cards for it on the MSN front page. Articles for music groups are deleted on a daily basis, without even bothering to check that the bands have releases listed on Amazon (see the discussion for Hot Cross, for example). It is clear that there is an overzealous elite who does not represent the younger internet community. Unfortunately, this discourages said younger internet community from becoming more involved in Wikipedia and creates a vicious cycle.

In conclusion, you can see that this is not as much about the article as it is about the principle. I apologize for the length of this post, but I think this is topic is crucial to the continued survival of Wikipedia, and this seemed the most appropriate place. If anyone knows a better place for it, please move it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.27.11 (talk • contribs) 00:53, October 19, 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion. The AFD was initially closed no consensus by an involved non-admin, then reopened by an admin, then closed as delete by an admin. Looking at the AFD, I see a lot of socks but no real sources other than some handwaving about being famous on YouTube. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion When removing the single purpose accounts, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angry_Nintendo_Nerd presents a rather clear consensus. Though I respect the arguments of the anon who started this deletion review, I can't find sufficient notability for Angry Nintendo Nerd to even warrant another AfD discussion. From my perspective, AMIB's reading of the AfD- that it was closed by a non-admin who had !voted "weak keep" on the article, and that almost every single keep !vote was from an SPA- is completely correct. While the above user does cite references to Angry Nintendo Nerd, they do not come from reliable sources (and believe me, a lot of publications and web sites qualify as reliable sources). I am a huge gamer, and, at 21, either part of the "younger internet community" or a recent graduate of said community; I can't find any significance for the subject, and I certainly can't find any verifiable importance, so there's no reason to have an article on him. -- Kicking222 05:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - You don't need Time or Newsweek, but you do need something. Heck, even several specific YTMNDs had short articles in Wired. Self-proclaimed, unreported-on "phenomena" and "memes" have no place in an encyclopedia. This is not a bias specifically against memes (some of them are readily verifiable) – it is a bias against unverifiable information that we have no way of fact checking for. As for your first point, do you really think articles get deleted specifically because people aren't interested in it? If so, you really haven't spent as much as you think here. I'm 21 as well and also an avid gamer, I read sites like SomethingAwful, B3ta, YTMND, and such daily, so I'm not quite sure why you seem to think we're all doddering 65 year old men who are only interested in Henry VIII and have no interest in your new-fangled internet. Anyways, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia – everything must verifiable with reliable sources, otherwise it just becomes a distorted Wikiality. Wickethewok 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information of possible interest: A few days ago, an SPA known as Xdrake (talk · contribs) posted this request to WP:AFC asking that we create a new article called Angry Video Game Nerd. I denied the request based on the salting of Angry Nintendo Nerd and informed Gwernol of the request, which led to him preemptively salting Angry Video Game Nerd as well. You may wish to take this into account when !voting. --Aaron 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First, WP:AGF regarding users with low contributions, especially when they have to go to Articles for Creation because they're new. Second, we're salting articles that never existed now? Huh? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no WP:AGF issue here. I was patrolling WP:AFC, I saw the request. I had already decided to decline the request as the article was nn as proposed, but I decided to take a quick peek at Angry Nintendo Nerd to see if I could tell the newbie editor that, in effect, the article already existed and he was free to go edit it there. Instead, I discovered that it had been salted long ago following a sock-infested AfD and a G4. Given those circumstances, I dropped a note to Gwernol (as he was the last one to protect the page) to let him know about it in case he thought further action would be needed. I guess he did, since he salted the new page as well. The end. If this DRV is successful and the article is recreated, fine by me. --Aaron 01:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. My favourite line from the nomination: "The mainstream news media cannot be expected to cover every internet meme..." That's correct of course, but if your local newspaper doesn't think internet videos are worthy of coverage between their articles an church bake sales and school field days, what on earth makes you think a worldwide general-interest encyclopedia should cover them? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Demented Cartoon Movie

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Demented Cartoon Movie (2nd nomination) I noticed the article was determined to be deleted. The debate page had just come up with a few better examples as to the articles qualifications on Wikipedia, but there was no comment on these points as the article was shut down. I would like to hear what the administrator based their closing on, and relist. Any information would be appreciated! --Ridesim 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the closing administrator. The arguments for deletion were based around the fact that there was an absence of material meeting verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. The arguments for keep mainly consisting of vague assertions of notability being based on appearances in several other not particularly notable internet animations/media. Being listed on Albinoblacksheep is fairly trivial and hardly a measure of notability. Wickethewok 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - AFD was conducted correctly, and a review of the comments made indicates that there was no non-trivial references to the topic to be had. A flash cartoon referring to a flash cartoon is not a reliable source. An established magazine or newspaper referring to a flash cartoon is - but there was no indication of such existing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure To fully see the references added to the AFD, go into edit mode on the AFD page, add the <references/> tag, and preview. What we get is 1) urban dictionary, 2) you-tube and 3) video.google.com. These are not reliable sources as they are sites that anyone can edit, which is the reason that Wikipedia is not a reliable source by our standards. GRBerry 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case the claim that a flash movie is of encyclopaedic notability requires evidence in the form of it having been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. As noted above, no such evidence has been provided. Guy 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse colsure: Although Wickethewok was active in the first AfD there is no sign that he applied any bias in the closure of the second. Those voting keep never addressed the issues in WP:WEB. If there was a case to be made based on unique hits per WP:GOOGLE or traffic per alexa rank, it was not made in the debate. -MrFizyx 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I was active in the original AFD discussion... 0_o. Just to make it clear, my closure on this AFD was independent of my comment in the first AFD, which occurred about 1/2 year ago. Wickethewok 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to never addressing WP:WEB, I did, but Albino Blacksheep was determined to not be an online publisher. --Ridesim 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, didn't see that at first, but I'm not surprised given that they are just distributing posts from various members. Even if they are "publishers", is there some reason that this cartoon really stands out from other content posted there? -MrFizyx 03:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - per procedure. Tony Fox is right, no evidence was given -- Tawker 03:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as valid AfD. The only thing even remotely close to a process breach is the fact mentioned above that closer Wicket voted in the first AfD... but not only isn't that a big deal, I also can't imagine that anyone else would possibly have closed it differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Valid AfD, keep voters could not show how series met WP:WEB despite repeated requests to do so. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 20:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Party System

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth Party System

This article has had a somewhat tortured history. It was prodded, deleted, and the deletion was brought here. It received six Endorse deletion !votes before it was sent to AfD as a contested prod. Because of this, the AfD had no deletion argument at all for a while. The deletion argument is straightforward:

This is an obscure addendum to V. O. Key's Fifth Party System. It reflects the views of a single paper that the Sixth Party System began in 1964, and ended in 1994. This itself is one of 23 papers variously dating the beginning of the Sixth Party System between 1960 and the present. Some of them mention the Sixth Party System only to deny it has begun. These in turn are a small fraction of the hundreds of papers on critical elections in the United States.

I do not believe that any of the keep !votes (except KChase, who has a copy; I look forward to his expanded version) even addresses this argument, save by ungrounded assertions that there must be more scholarly papers out there somewhere. If so, scholar.google.com and JSTOR have not found them.

If we take out the dates, we are left with the dicdef: "After the Fifth Party System comes the Sixth Party System." (This is itself not uncontroversial: some scholars think the Fifth Party System has been replaced by a system of dealignment.)

Insofar as what I have said here has encyclopedic content, it is in Fifth Party System. So I propose to overturn and delete. Septentrionalis 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin, my reasoning was that neither the delete arguments nor the keep arguments were fully addressed, and there seemed to be no clear thoughts as to whether it should be redirected. I disregarded the OR claims concerning the fact that the Sixth Party System must have come into existence by now, but I did note Uncle G's point of Aldrich's claim and Septentrionalis' own research revealing that articles had been written concerning at least the concept of a Sixth Party System. The claims made in the article may have been badly skewed toward the existence of a Sixth Party System, but I judged that would be a matter for cleanup or merging (as I stated when closing).Yomangani ^talk 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I think this really should have closed as a clear keep due to the obvious references to the system, endorse closure anyway. I originally said keep due to UncleG's statement, but looking back at it, I'm more compelled by Septentrionalis's delete recommendation, where he notes the amount of citations. The article needs to be written accurately, for sure, but that's not a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, delete, userfy on request. Closing admins need to understand that they are guardians of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR first, guardians of consensus second. The article is, after 5 days of prodding and 11 days of discussion, still wholly unsourced. The onus to establish keepability per those three policies is on the editors, and in extension keep voters. Instead of positive evidence we mostly got assertions and "looks good to me" waffle during the AfD. As long as this article doesn't establish that it isn't OR and reflects more than a fringe PoV it has no business in the mainspace. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't a better solution at this stage be to take the citations available at the AfD and incorporate them? It's one thing if sources don't exist, it's another completely if they just haven't been incorporated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AfD makes only one citation for this idea; that's all there is. That's the problem. I think trying to put in an average of all 23 articles would look like the last paragraph of Fifth Party System, and that's not an article. Septentrionalis 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stubs aren't bad things, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Neither are redirects. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But stubs are better than redirects. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Not always. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I was being somewhat coy with that last response, but I'm not entirely sure how your links qualify with this situaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This article gives undue weight to Aldrich's single, rarely cited view (one of the five papers that does is also on the list; it cites him for the 1994 critical election, but denies the 1964-8 critical election.) Septentrionalis 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So merely having the article gives it undue weight? This is a new one for me. Am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Right, I don't think that qualifies here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete It's original research. Deleting it should be strightforward. Why is this still a question? Eusebeus 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, due to absence of discussion in the academic press. This is notionally an academic concept, so if it's not covered by several papers in the peer-reviewed journals it's somewhere between original research and a report of one man's protologism. Guy 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems that very little content could meet WP:V, why not merge and redirect to Fifth Party System? -MrFizyx 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried that on Seventh Party System, now deleted on much the same grounds, and was immediately reverted. Septentrionalis 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both this and Seventh Party System should redirect to Fifth Party System, which they now do. Phil Sandifer 03:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish you hadn't done that in the middle of a discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish we would stop using DRV to paralyze common sense decisions so that we are instead bound into the "consensus" created by this den of idiocy, but hey, nobody gets everything they want. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete as the relevant content has been merged into Fifth Party System and the previous article gave undue weight to a minority idea. I also updated the template. I've added this article to my to-do list and will attempt a rewrite soon. In leiu of spamming, I'd ask interested parties to add Sixth Party System to their watchlist. When I get to it, I'll put the new version on that talk page and folks can comment before it goes back into mainspace.Kchase T 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closure Septentrionalis complains that sources don't exist but my keep recomendation was based upon his own listing of acedemic references. Eluchil404 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 *'''Overturn and Delete''' as the relevant content has been merged into Fifth Party System and the previous article gave undue weight to a minority idea. I also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:American_political_eras&diff=prev&oldid=82444968 updated the template]. I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AKchase02%2Fto_do&diff=82445612&oldid=69770522 added] this article to my to-do list and will attempt a rewrite soon. In leiu of spamming, I'd ask interested parties to add [[Sixth Party System]] to their watchlist. When I get to it, I'll put the new version on that talk page and folks can comment before it goes back into mainspace.[[User:Kchase02|Kchase]] [[User_talk:Kchase02|T]] 16:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse Closure''' Septentrionalis complains that sources don't exist but my keep recomendation was based upon his own listing of acedemic references.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Andrew Jackson Jihad]]====
-This article was renominated on AFD less than two hours after the previous AFD closed, because the nominator did not agree with the decision of the closing admin (no consensus).
-*The more recent AFD can be found here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad 3]]
-*The one that closed 2 hours earlier: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad 2]]
-This is a procedural listing, so I offer no opinion on the matter. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<font color="green">des</font>]][[User talk:Coredesat|at]]''' 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Consensus to delete present'''. A case of [[Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote]] and misadressed argument. Discussions in both the first and second AFD's clearly favoured deletion, and the claims to notability in the most recent revisions of the article are approaching [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]] in their tenuousness. An uncited claim that they are "representative of the Arizona [[DIY ethic]]" as an attempt to meet [[WP:MUSIC]]'s requirement of "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style", for instance.
-:Additionally, the original afd [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad|here]] stated that the necessary guideline to meet was [[WP:BAND]], '''not''' [[WP:MUSIC]], while the keep arguments of the 2nd nomination all focused on [[WP:MUSIC]]. Finally, the votes have repeatedly been canvassed by [[User:Parsssseltongue]]. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**[[WP:BAND]] and [[WP:MUSIC]] are the same thing. [[User:Morgan Wick|Morgan Wick]] 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn AfD 3, delete based on AfD 2, and salt.''' AfD 3 was out of process, but the nom's heart was in the right place. The delete votes clearly beat out the keep votes on AfD 2 even as is; when you strip out the '''solicited''' keep votes, there's no question. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Please read up on AfD its not a vote. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-***Please bother to learn a little bit about Wikipedia culture before patronizing me as if you're some admin with four years' experience. I know precisely how AfD works. My opinion is that AfD 2 was a consensus to delete. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete article based on reasonable consensus from AFD2'''  Votes that were stacked/canvassed should be discounted and removed from consideration.  The amount of vote canvassing that occured in AFD3 was incredible, even if the editor claims that votes were solicited from both sides of the arguement. --[[User:NMChico24|NMChico24]] 07:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**I did not stack or canvas or cajole or what have you. I solicited opinions. No more personal attacks, please. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-**'''Comment''' Agreed. I count [[Special:Contributions/Parsssseltongue|27]] instances of canvassing in less than ten minutes. He did seem to get people who were against keeping the article as well in the previous debate, but in AFD3 most voted close due to the relative timing of the two. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-***I did not stack or canvas or cajole or what have you. I solicited opinions. No more personal attacks, please. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment as closing admin on second AFD''' - Firstly, it is not a vote, so 11-5 doesn't convince me to delete, just that it needs closer examination. Secondly there were a number of people expressing their opinion that the notability was borderline (not just the keepers, but some who abstained or just commented), and not all these points were addressed by those advocating deletion. Thirdly, the canvassing seemed to have the opposite of the desired effect if anything (a number of the canvassed editors strongly recommended deleting), so although it would have perhaps been fitting to delete the article as "punishment", that's not the way it works. Finally, the article had already been rescued from deletion via DRV, so I was expecting any delete decision to be challenged at DRV, possibly leading to relisting at AFD (which I was fruitlessly hoping to avoid). Since there was no consensus I closed it as such (the guidelines state that if there is any doubt do not delete). The editor who opened the third AFD stated that they did not necessarily disagree with the closing decision, but just wanted to get consensus by having another AFD. [[User:Yomangani|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangani|<sup>talk</sup>]] 09:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' Yomangani makes some reasonable points, but the closure of AFD2 should have been delete.  [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Why? There was no consensus. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Talk page notifications of AfD's are not canvassing if they fall under "friendly notices" (see [[WP:SPAM#Friendly_notice]]). So to invalidate the solicited !votes it also needs to be shown that [[User:Parsssseltongue]] had a specific goal in mind when selecting those editors (since the notes themselves are generally neutral). Of course (s)he also did it for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeartattaCk]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**I did not stack or canvas or cajole or what have you. I solicited opinions. No more personal attacks, please. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Well, there is the fact that the people notified were the keep voters from the first AFD, while nobody else who commented on the AFD or expressed an interest was notified. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-***Other editors who had not participated in the previous AFD were notified as well on the basis that they had "participated in other music related AFDs", so it wasn't a cut and dried selection of only the keep voters from the previous AFD (and since the canvassed editors could think for themselves, it didn't have the effect of generating a keep anyway). [[User:Yomangani|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangani|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**** But those who were contacted had voted only Keep on previous AFDs. There was a clear bias there. [[User:Halo|Halo]] 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*****Double checked. Clear canvassing. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-******Nothing here is "clear," T&E. I did not stack or canvas or cajole or what have you. I solicited opinions. No more personal attacks, please. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*******'''[[WP:SPAM#Votestacking]]''': ''In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.'' EOD. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-********And I have admitted to that oversight on my part, and I apologize. I tried to rectify that the 3rd time around, and also with the [[heartattaCk]] DRV. I would hope having been in the thick of things with me now for a few days, you see where my heart is with all this, and wouldn't assume bad faith anymore. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 21:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*********So I don't know what the problem is. My post above is very clear that good faith should be assumed absent clear evidence of canvassing or votestacking. Evidence was provided and you admitted to it. Holding you to policy is not a personal attack. Good to hear you're trying to stick to it from now on. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-**********At this point, despite whatever disagreements there have been, can we at least come to the same page about this: Looking at the AfDs, and looking at this DRV, there still is '''no consensus.''' We really need to close this, let the article stand, and watch it expand. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 21:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-***********No, we should delete it with no prejudice towards future recreation with additional reliable source references. --[[User:Tjstrf|tjstrf]] 21:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse'''.  Nothign invalid about this closure, really. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' previous decision, let it go there was nothing wrong with the decision made, its not simply a vote count but if there are logical and understandable arguements made by both sides then there is obviously no concensus on the topic. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 12:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse'''. The second AFD looks like a "no consensus" to me, so I have to agree with Yomangami's decision. -[[User:Hit bull, win steak|Hit bull, win steak]]<sup>[[User talk:Hit bull, win steak|(Moo!)]]</sup> 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Consensus to delete''' - It's a long story how I got here, but basically, I believe that was concensus on the 2nd AFD. Apparently the 3rd AFD was too soon (I didn't realise that it was bad karma to quickly relist No Consensus votes to try and establish one, but apparently so and this should be said somewhere), so I retracted that based on advice there, and here we are. There were several more delete votes, the AFD was dodgy due to canvassing (he only contacted those who previously voted "keep" on related AFDs) and even if you follow that AFD is a discussion and not a straight vote count, then this becomes even clearer if you read the discussion - those who voted Keep have very few arguments, while does who voted delete generally had indepth responses explaining their point of view - I even did a point by point breakdown of how it fails [[WP:MUSIC]] on the 3rd AFD. Surely if it's not a vote, then "Delete" put up a much better case? I have a feeling doing this will just result in it going to /yet another/ AFD once this is over though, as I do understand how someone could get "No Consensus" even if I personally disagree. [[User:Halo|Halo]] 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' I am going to abstain from !voting in this discussion, as I participated in both the original AfD and the post-DRV AfD2, !voting delete both times. Even though I moved for deletion in the second AfD, Parssssel- with whom I have a long-standing friendly relationship even though we disagree on the majority of AfD issues- did invite me to participate in the quickly-made third AfD. I can't vouch for anyone else PT "solicited", but in his defense, I was told about the third AfD despite my prior objections to the article. -- [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222]] 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**'''Comment''' - I don't believe he canvassed the 3rd AfD (having seen my comments about it actually in the AfD itself), but I believe he did on the 2nd. Examples of people who got messages on their talk page: [[User:TruthbringerToronto]] - who tends to vote Keep and voted Keep, [[User:MrFizyx]] who voted Keep, [[User:Antmoney85]], having very few edits, previously voting mainly "No Vote" was contacted who voted "Keep", [[User:Messwemade]], [[User:AQu01rius]] who both voted keep on [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/F.Y.P]]. [[User:Superlex]] and  [[User:Ac@osr]], [[User:badlydrawnjeff]], [[User:Kitsune_Sniper]] and me who voted Keep on [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rival_Schools_%28band%29]]. I'm sure there's more. Note that /most/ of these also voted Keep, but not all, on the AFD. If these messages hadn't been sent, I believe that the AFD would have had a Delete consensus. -[[User:Halo|Halo]] 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-***For the record, I would have voted keep on this upon seeing it in my daily AfD review.  His contacting me about it had nothing to do with my position on this article. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-***'''Comment on the above analysis by [[User:Halo|Halo]]:''' This is misleading (though probably not intentionally).  He names seven users who were contacted regarding AfD2 and states, ''"Note that /most/ of these also voted Keep, but not all, on the AFD."''  I only count two that voted "keep" in AfD2.  "Most" appear not to have commented in AfD2.  I myself voted keep in AfD1, and commented, but abstained from AfD2.  -[[User:MrFizyx|MrFizyx]] 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-****'''Comment''': Fair point. Lets say there were two that voted keep in AfD2 as a direct relation to the comments (TruthbringerToronto and SuperLex), and 1 less delete vote (mine). This would lead to 10/3, or 76% delete to 24% keep, which is quite a significant difference and may have altered the result. The practise should certainly be frowned on. [[User:Halo|Halo]] 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-****'''reply''': Actually I missed "Superlex" in my tally, so 3, not 2 out of your list.  Yes, the practise must be discouraged, hence [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Jackson_Jihad_2&diff=prev&oldid=80758980 my response] to it.  Still the closure is not to be punitive. -[[User:MrFizyx|MrFizyx]] 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-***I'm insulted by your accusation, Halo.  Please assume good faith.  I had seen that AfD before PT commented on my talk page.  I was actually in the process of examining that page, its talk page, and its sources when I saw the "talk page message box" at the top of my screen.  I even commented at PT's talk page about how spooky it was to recieve his message at the same time I was looking at the article.  My "keep" vote was based on my belief that the article passes [[WP:MUSIC]] and not because any other poster told me to.  So, once again Halo, please assume good faith. - [[User:Superlex|Lex]] 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (forgot that part)
-**** What I said wasn't an accusation in the least - I was trying to state that certain people are more likely to vote keep for certain types of article, and the way PT contacted certain people seemed extremely suspicious and may have altered the result of the vote. This was in no way an attack or me insinuating anything other than that. [[User:Halo|Halo]] 23:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' I'm not sure this DRV is going to solve anything. [[User:Yomangani]] made a judgement call and it was well within his right to do so; AfD isn't a straight count.  That said, I see no evidence that this band meets [[WP:MUSIC]] unless one is being ''very generous'' in applying it.  The did a "club and basement" tour, and there is a weak contention that they are notable on the local scene (though I must give props to any band that covers ''[[In the Aeroplane Over the Sea]]'').  That said, I think the best bet is to let the article stand, [[WP:CHILL]] and if somene wants to AfD this in another 2-3 months, go for it, unless of course [[Andrew Jackson Jihad]] strongly and verifiably meets [[WP:MUSIC]] at that point.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] 14:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' based on AFD2. Parsseltongue has a habit of creating articles for no-name groups, canvassing support for the delete articles (even going outside of Wikipedia to do so), and generally fogging things up. &mdash;[[User:Chowbok|Chowbok]] 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**I have NEVER gone outside of Wikipedia. Please strike that comment. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Consensus to Delete''' established imo in AFD2, should be deleted and salted if necessary. Does not meet [[WP:MUSIC]]. Said with full respect to Yomangani, his decision and his right to make it. <b>[[User:Deiz|<FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT>]]</b> <small>[[User talk:Deiz|talk]]</small> 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*A look through all the discussion thus far indicates to me that the majority of the 'keep' side in the AfDs was carried by PT, who has a definite and laudable passion for indie groups. But despite PT's passion and debating skills, the consideration really should have been for the arguments made with regards to WP:MUSIC, which to me haven't been met by this band. Mainly, I focus on the two albums or national touring thing, and it would appear this band fails both. The sources given are iffy, to me, and whether they can be classified as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] is debatable (the blog, for example, is right out, and the student papers are questionable - this from a guy who edited one). Thus, I believe there was a '''consensus to delete''' present in the second AfD; its closure should be reversed and the article deleted. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**The concensus at WP:RS is that student papers meet the criteria. I had originally argued they did not, but was proven that college papers do meet the criteria according to those that frequent WP:RS. The issue was their credibility was not diminished solely because of their audience. I was then presented with facts about how some college papers have XYZ range of penetration audiences etc. --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure of AfD, endorse keeping article'''. There is a definite philosophical difference on Wikipedia betweeen people who think it should contain only radio-played and major-label bands and those who want room for bands that are slightly off the path, but still notable. The criteria of [[WP:MUSIC]] allows for [[DIY]] bands, because even a [[DIY]] band will generate coverage if notable enough. There wasn't a consensus for notability on the first AfD, and the article was deleted. I waited a few months until there was more coverage. I asked for a content reivew, had the old article placed on my userspace, and added the new citations to further assert notability. Not 2 minutes after I posted the article, it went up for AfD. There was much discussion, and yes, I overlooked some in only giving friendly notices to editors who voted keep in the first AfD, though most of my notices were to editors from other music-related AfDs who seemed to know what they were talking about. That doesn't mean they each agreed with me. Like I said, there is a philosophical difference, and there was no consensus. I don't expect us to reach one anytime soon, which is why a default keep seems wise. This will allow for the article to be expanded, and even though I stand behind the reliability of the sources I cited (and that other editors, such as MrFizyx, provided), I'm sure there will be even more and even reliable sources to expand upon. That is the spirit of Wikipedia. All this "delete, salt the earth" nonsense (besides being nerdy... please stop saying "delete with extreme prejudice," too, this ain't [[Apocalypse Now]]) goes against the aim of the project. When the third AfD opened, I let EVERYONE know... "keep" and "delete" voters alike. This isn't a band that has been around a month comprised of high schoolers who put up a MySpace. This is the leader of a movement in the fourth largest city in the United States. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn AfD2, delete''', otherwise relist. Blatant attempt at AfD manipulation, not the first time from the same user. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Stop manipulating the truth and stop the personal attacks. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-***Criticism of your behavior is not a personal attack. Stop trying to silence everybody with baseless claims. &mdash;[[User:Chowbok|Chowbok]] 18:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-****It's erroneous criticism based on lies. I don't make claims, I make arguments with solid backing, and I don't try to silence anyone. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure of AfD2 by [[User:Yomangani|Yomangani]]:''' Admin's closing comments show clear thought process and that the topics in this discussion were given consideration.  I wish more closures were done as such.  Others would have read the tea leaves differently, but nothing stated here provides clear cause for a reversal. -[[User:MrFizyx|MrFizyx]] 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Overturn and delete'''.  Why are we even having this discussion?  This is a local two-piece band, it has no commericlaly released albums, there is no evidence of touring, no evidence of being signed with a major (or indeed any) label, no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources - it's perilously close to an A7 speedy.  Look at the publicity photo for God's sake!  Come back when they have a recording deal and a couple of commercial albums under their belt.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Thank you for demonstrating the prejudice some editors on Wikipedia have. So what is they're two-piece? And as I've stated again and again, a major label affiliation does not equal notability. There are other signs of notability, which have not only been asserted, but cited (and by reliable sources, not non-trvial as some seem to be erroneously reporting). [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*** Yup, you're absolutely right: I am prejudiced against unsigned bands with no commerical releases and no non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources.  More than that: I am prejudiced against ''all'' subjects which do not have multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources.  And guess what?  So is our [[WP:CSD|deletion policy]].  And our [[WP:V|verifiability policy]].  And our [[WP:NPOV|neutrality policy]].  And our [[WP:RS|sourcing guideline]].  And our [[WP:NMG|music guideline]].  So much prejudice!  One wonders why they went to the bother of writing all those policies and guidelines when all they do is subvert Wikipedia's true purpose of promoting unsigned bands... <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 13:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-****Hey, Guy? [[WP:DICK|It's not cool to be a dick]], can you watch the tone? Also, it doesn't matter if the band is not signed to a major label. They do have non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*****I like to cite [[User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag|this essay]] whenever someone cites [[WP:DICK]]. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-******Come on, MIB, you know I'm trying here, help me out. [[WP:CIVIL|Share the love]]. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 22:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*******To me A Man In Black's reply was no less civil than yours, but I would suggest in future not using terms like "prejudiced" and speaking in big generalisations - they're only going to get people's backs up and that's never a good thing.-[[User:Halo|Halo]] 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure of AfD2''' - I support Yamangani's postition that the arguments led to no consensus.  AfD is not a vote. - [[User:Superlex|Lex]] 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' based on AfD2. Clearly fails [[WP:MUSIC]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: this !vote got deleted -- I am restoring it [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
-*'''Comment'''. Please take note of [[WP:AGF]]. Psss did message a lot users, '''but for their opinions only''' if you actually read it and assumed good faith. I would like further discussion on this matter to be stopped as it's irrelevant and ignorant.
-My comments have been made. Based on the references, I think this article meets at least one criteria of[[WP:MUSIC]]. However, this article is too lengthy for a artist of borderline notablity, and should be extracted. <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">AQu01rius</font> <small>([[User:AQu01rius|User]] | [[User_talk:AQu01rius|Talk]] | [[en:User:AQu01rius/Websites|Websites]])</small>&nbsp; 05:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Overturn and delete''' per consensus at AfD2, and as noted by JzG, Zoe. Failing this '''relist'''. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 13:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' - I have found out Jihad will be releasing a split with [[Ghost Mice]] on [[Plan-It-X-Records]]. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 17:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Source? I couldn't find it in their [http://www.plan-it-x.com/catalog.html catalog]. -[[User:MrFizyx|MrFizyx]] 22:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-***I don't have a website source for you at present, let me look into it, I was told an announcement is forthcoming and to be published... somewhere? I'll find out and post it for you. [[User:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">PT</font>]] <sup>([[User_talk:parsssseltongue|<font color="Green">s-s-s-s</font>]])</sup> 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse ''' I have examined both Articles for deletion 2 and 3 for this article, and I see little wrong with the manner in which it proceeded and concluded. AFD is not a vote, and the decision of No Consensus in the second seems reasonable. I see no major reason to overturn and delete.--[[User:Auger Martel|Auger Martel]] 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and relist''', hopefully then there may be a fair outcome when certain editors, known for their questionable actions both closing and soliciting AfD's, can't unjustly sway the outcome to override policy and concensus. [[WP:CCC]]. <span style="font-family: sans-serif;">'''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel]][[Special:Random|.]][[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|Bryant]]'''</span> 12:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-*:[[There Is No Cabal]] --[[User:NuclearUmpf|Nuclear]][[User:Zer0faults|Zer0]] 16:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and relist'''. If it were just canvassing, I'd endorse. If it were just the judgment call by the closing admin, I'd endorse. With both issues present, going to the (somewhat ridiculous but necessary) 4th listing on AfD is the best practice. [[User:Erechtheus|Erechtheus]] 00:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' in light of canvassing a full, fair hearing is the best solution.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 11:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)