Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 October 22

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

22 October 2006

Blake Bowden

Creator of page has asked for it to be deleted after the recent "keep" decision. It's not in the most proper place, but the request began at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Bowden. Deletion was also requested by an anon user claiming to be the subject of the article. -- Tim D 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep article. There were only two actual !votes, and both were "keep"; it's kind of hard for the closing admin to mess that up. There's no evidence that Theguyinblue is the original creator; it was created by an anon using an IP address with a very long history of vandalism (possible proxy?). There's also no evidence that the anon claiming to be the subject actually is the subject (though his IP does trace back to Cincinnati, where the subject lives). If the anon is truly Blake Bowden, then he should probably take this up with the office. --Aaron 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't really like calling people out, but check the contribution history of Theguyinblue. He signs his third oldest this edit as "Dr. Blake Bowden." From that, which was from before the existence of the Blake Bowden article, I see the request as legitimate. -- Tim D 23:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. The notability of the subject is questionable. There are assertions of notability in the article and in the AfD, but all are tagged with {{fact}}. Of the two keep reasonings in the AfD, one relies on how many hits he gets on a search engine, not on whether he has actually written or done anything notable, and one is apparently from the subject and along the lines of "he's a great guy", with some assertions of notability but similarly unsupported by actual credible sources. An AfD with a decent level of participation is needed, I think. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• I have blanked the article as a courtesy while we establish what Dr. Bowden's problem is with the content; I have asked at User talk:Theguyinblue since he seems to be, or be known to, the subject. As far as I am concerned we can delete, relist or fix up, but if the subject has an issue with the content we need to do something to fix it without requiring him to first chop down the tallest tree in the forest with a herring. I don't think DRV is necessarily the way to fix a WP:LIVING issue, but whatever. Guy 10:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that Dr Blake Bowden's article was apparently written by one Dr Blake Bowden [1] [2], I would be interested to hear what problem Dr Blake Bowden has with the article Dr Blake Bowden has written on him. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The original discussion had no support for the deletion nomination, two people in favour of keeping the article and one comment disputing the grounds for deletion. I stand by my closure of the discussion as a keep. However, the fact that one of the people in favour of keeping the article hs now changed their mind and blanked the article may be a reason to relist it, especially given the low participation. I can't find the occasion Tim speaks of where Theguyinblue signs as Blake Bowden (his third edit was this, but whether he or the anon are actually Blake Bowden is irrelevant. A request from the subject is not grounds for deletion. If there is a problem with the content, rather than simply the existence of the article, then we can fix that as soon as we know what it is, but I would be surprised if that is the issue, given that Theguyinblue was in favour of keeping the article a weak earlier. JPD (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. For some reason I thought that the first screen of contributions was the only screen (whoops). The edit that I was referring to is here. As for the original arguments for keeping, that may have partially been due to an obfuscation of the content from a lack of organization. But the question now would be whether the claims made in the article can indeed be cited. Personally, from what I've checked out, it seems that most of them cannot be. I don't doubt what Dr. Bowden has done in his career, but if there are no third-party sources of the info, it doesn't really fit in an encyclopedic article. -- Tim D 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• If so, that's a matter for a later AfD moreso than a Deletion Review. The process here is geared more towards appealing a closure on the grounds that it was improper.--Rosicrucian 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Macau categories

To overturn Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 15#People_by_nationality_sub-category_pages concerning Macau. Macanese often refers specifically to natives in Macau with partial Portuguese parentage. People from Macau is broader than Macanese people. - Privacy 13:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. It appears that there is a distinct difference between the two. Perhaps similar to Native Americans vs. People from America. See Macanese people. -- Tim D 05:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak overturn of this one only There is some evidence that the two terms are different. Appropriate header text needs to be put on the categories. GRBerry 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Dreadmire

I request this article be undeleted. I came to Wikipedia looking for detailed info about the book for a school project, only to find the article had been recently deleted. After reviewing the persons involved in the debate, I believe meat puppets and sock puppets, on a jihad against the author of the Dreadmire book, are responsible for the DELETE decision by the closing Admin. The book meets the requirements, albeit barely, at Wikipedia:Notability (books). I believe the article can be revamped to make it less of an advertisement and more of a encyclopedia entry, which was the original complaint. Provided the meat puppets do not vandalize the article, I think it can be repaired. The author Randy Richards is notable too, as he was involved in a legal dispute with another publisher (Necromancer Games), over the Dreadmire manuscript. The notability of all, via popularity, high quality, infamy, and/or controversy of both the book, Dreadmire, and the author, Randy Richards, make the article a necessity for Wikipedia.--RJMalko 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC) I moved this request here. It had been incorrectly placed under another section of this page. Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The article was deleted after an absurd debate involving more puppets than Sesame Street. The first edits of user RJMalko (talk · contribs) who is requesting undeletion are a few hours old and he just happened (I suppose) to drop by this book he dearly loves and the articles (also up for AfD) concerning its publisher. I think a competent admin should look closely into a sockpuppetry (or at least meatpuppetry) case involving Cryogenesis (talk · contribs) with likely puppets RJMalko (talk · contribs), IIMMamaP (talk · contribs), JLsan (talk · contribs), BinksG (talk · contribs), Ifuwantitlikethat (talk · contribs), 68.208.71.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 68.222.23.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I'm sure I'm even missing some... Pascal.Tesson 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn I am the creator of the original article and I have not now, nor ever, used sock puppets. I believe if you check the IP addresses of everyone involved with the debate, you will find there is no sock puppetry on my part. I cannot speak for everyone. I do believe there were meat puppets on both sides of the debate (not of my doing) called in by new user Quode, or my newest stalker Pascal.Tesson. My original idea was to create a rundown of what the book was about (perhaps I got too carried away), then create articles on the author and publishing company, in the same format other books of a similar nature are entered into Wikipedia (i.e. Eberron, Greyhawk). Precedent for this kind of article has already been set, all forms of puppetry aside. And given the legal notoriety of Dreadmire, as noted above, as well as the notoriety of the author, I think at the very least ONE ARTICLE explaining about the book, its author, and publisher is in order.--Cryogenesis 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• As your newest stalker, I would like to point out that your reaction to all of this was to place prod tags on 6 different established articles, including a WikiProject and to add Dreadmire to the list of requested articles. Pascal.Tesson 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, thats the pot calling the kettle black. Merely continuing your work. Trying to be a service to Wikipedia. Nothing more. Don't be a hypocrite, or you'll start to look like you have ulterior motives.--Cryogenesis 06:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. Edit histories are public for a reason. ~ trialsanderrors 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion I have already made my points. At this time any response would just extend the cycle. As Quode I stand alone, I fought alone, and I hope my integrity speaks for me. The others who stood against him did so of there own free will. Randy hates anyone who stands against his will. He cannot answer an honest question, cannot stand for honest debate. Its all smoke and mirrors, accusation without any factual information, conspiracy for no gain. Without the Dreadmire article Randy will still be the same person, he looses nothing, gains nothing. Is all this chaos worth it? We see Cryogenesis pleading for a scrap, please let him leave the table hungry but maybe wiser for it. Quode 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• <Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)>User:Cryogenesis|Cryogenesis]] 06:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion and kudos to the closer for going through this mess. ~ trialsanderrors 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Wow, that was one mess of an AfD discussion to read. I see no process error - closing admin did well to discount likely socks and make judgment call based on available arguments. GassyGuy 07:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I also deleted Randy Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was being used largely as an attack. It was tagged WP:PROD by one of the involved parties as harrassment, which complaint was made in a civil manner, but the editors of this article continued to edit-war over the tag and add apparently defamatory material. I have no idea what is going on here, but it seems to me that the subject is more trouble than it's worth. Guy 08:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Randy Richard page was created to support the spam page Dreadmire. The author created a biography of Randy that was glowing, presenting only one side of this individuals involvement with the RPG hobby as a whole. When a legitimate attempt was made to one, clarify some of the statements and two, expand upon Randy’s practices in the hobby as a whole, was met with hostility and dis-information. Cryogenesis tried to keep the information out and when he realized that the information was properly sourced and legitimate cried FOUL and demanded the page deleted. There was no organized attempt to harass Randy, but there was a goal to produce both sides of the argument. The worst reaction from Cryogensis was when the information in regard to Randies involvement with Coast Con was presented. Suddenly, a venerable institution dating back 30 years was accused of illegal dealings with no supporting proof just to discredit the fact they fired him from a position of authority. Make no mistake; the net bares witness to Randy and his childish and disruptive behavior. The events in regards to Dreadmire, Randy and Spellbinder have been no different.Quode 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Quite plausible, but in the end this gets put in the "more trouble than it's worth" basket, and per WP:LIVING I'd rather not go down the route of debating individuals' motives if that's all the same to you. Guy 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion What started as a simple act of author generated [Cryogenesis] self-advertising on a minor work has digrressed into name calling and puppetry that is really more trouble than it is worth for either the Wiki or Mr. Richards. Perhaps at a later date and after more time has elasped. At this point, there seems to be no point. -- Ifuwantitlikethat

• Agreed. Its called a smear campaign and Wiki vandalism. Thank you, and at the very least this attack was identified by a neutral party for what it really was... harassment. Thanks for the validation.--Cryogenesis 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, for reasons stated by Pascal.Tesson.--Robbstrd 18:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, closing rationale was correct, and the article originator's attempts to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point only weaken his case.--Rosicrucian 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There's simply no evidence of bad faith or misinterpretation of the sockpuppetry on the AfD by the closing admin. Also endorse per Rosicrucian. --Aaron 22:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rosicrucian. Fairsing 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per closing admin --Pak21 09:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, ban all socks (and sockpuppeteers) on both sides, and give a big shiny trophy to the closing admin for having to wade through that cesspool of a "discussion" so the rest of us don't have to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per all the above. Percy Snoodle 15:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Xplicit

I believe this article was unfairly deleted there are plenty of sources showing he is a real rapper/producer, just look Masta Ace's and Large Proffesors' albums! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebo Thug (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion Hoaxalicious. One funny thing: this user uploaded an image called Image:Me -8.jpg with the caption "photo of xplicit for a magazine article". He did not even bother to change the name of his lousy webcam capture... Pascal.Tesson 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was a by the book AfD. Do note that I started the deletion process if I'm not mistaken. Erechtheus 03:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lebo Thug (talk · contribs) is not helping his case by responding with crude vandalism[3] [4] [5]... Pascal.Tesson 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AfD was validly closed, almost all users who voted "keep" were SPAs. Lebo Thug's vandalism isn't helping his case, either. JIP | Talk 10:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Can we put this to bed now?? Deizio talk 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson

With all due respect to User:Naconkantari, the debate over the deletion of this article was contentious enough that I don't think it's appropriate to say that a consensus to delete was achieved. The debate was also unfortunately marred by politicized campaigning on other sites, both to keep and to delete, but that doesn't change the fact that there was no consensus. VoiceOfReason 09:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Additional from original requester of review. I just wanted to emphasize that, based on my understanding of the deletion review process, arguments over the merits of the deletion (does the article meet WP:BIO, did it have POV problems, etc.) aren't really relevant. That's what AfD is for. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the purpose of the deletion review is to look over the administrator's judgment that consensus was achieved in favor of deletion. So I'd ask those who are arguing here in favor of upholding the deletion: regardless of how you personally feel about the article, do you really believe that there was a consensus to delete? I don't; I think there was an ongoing controversy with few prospects for resolution in sight, and the proper action to take in cases of no consensus is to keep. VoiceOfReason 16:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn the deletion. Even discounting every account that anyone said was a sockpuppet or SPA, there was at most a slight preponderance for deletion, hence no consensus. JamesMLane t c 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn result of debate was no consensus. Catchpole 14:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn the deletion. Meets WP:BIO. No consensus for deletion. More extended comments here. Comments NBGPWS 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sustain the deletion. Non-notable person that violates WP:BLP. Spammed massively by outside websites but still non-notable.--Tbeatty 18:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the above comment is not germane. Such points are appropriate in an AfD, but we are not here to discuss the merits of the article but the merits of the deletion. Was a consensus to delete achieved? I find it difficult to see how anybody could say so. Also, hard to see how the article violates WP:BLP considering that it's not a B of an LP. VoiceOfReason 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment it is very germane since policy was cited and policy overrides any consensus even though I also believe consensus was delete.
      • See below. Guidelines are not policy. VoiceOfReason 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as per Tbeatty. --Strothra 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sustain the deletion. Perhaps the closing admin should have documented his rationale more extensively, but the closing was still delayed for several days during which I do not doubt much deliberation took place.--Rosicrucian 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sustain If the anon's are removed, there was wide concensus to delete. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Unlike the other deletionists editors who have commented in this DRV in favor of sustaining the original deletion, TDC has at least addressed the actual issue, because the closing admin is supposed to determine whether there was a consensus, not which side's arguments appeal to him or her. TDC's calculation is incorrect, however. I've attempted to do the work that the closing admin should have done. Discounting all anonymous comments and all users questioned as possible SPA's or whatever, my tally is: Delete 27, Merge 2, Keep 22. By normal standards, 57% for deletion (27+2) is not a consensus. The detailed breakdown is here. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, first off, can we please drop the "deletionist" accusations? It's really lame, hostile and unbecoming. As to your tally, remember that an AfD discussion is not a vote and the arguments given by each editor actually do count. Jinxmchue 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't intend "deletionist" as an accusation, but as a shorthand. To avert misinterpretation, I've stricken it and spelled out what I meant. As for the closing admin's responsibility, the policy makes clear that, although the admin examines the arguments advanced by the editors, the primary issue is whether there was a consensus in favor of deletion. It's not a vote but the numbers aren't irrelevant. Where, as here, a substantial number of experienced editors believe that WP:BIO is satisfied, the closing admin should not delete the article on the basis of a unilateral determination to the contrary. JamesMLane t c 00:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. I took your use of the word the way someone else used it to describe a perceived bias regarding AfD nominations. Thanks for explaining that.

I do have to say that sometimes the numbers can be and surprisingly often are somewhat irrelevant. An extreme example would be 100 "keeps" with no meaningful substance against just one well-reasoned, wholly Wiki-based "delete." Seriously. A lot of the reasonings for keeping the Andy Stephenson article just didn't hold water. I myself thought it should've been kept (albeit only marginally), but it had to have been drastically improved by people with the knowledge, time and ability to do so. I myself know very little about Andy's life, so I wasn't one of those people. Others were, however, yet only about two or three people actually tried to improve it. Unfortunately, their contributions ultimately weren't enough. Perhaps if someone were to recreate the article on their personal pages with more information, better sourcing (possibly depending on how this HBO thing turns out), and a lot less non-NPOV, it could be presented for replacement at some future time. Now is not the time, though. People's emotions are running too high. Many people here and elsewhere are very mad and throwing out ridiculous and uncivil accusations of bias, coordinated conspiracies, "politically motivated deletionists" and "freeper bullying" that, quite frankly, aren't helping their arguments or objections one bit. That this article is gone for the moment is not that big of a deal. There's no reason right now why it can't be re-created in the future - even the near future. People should take some time away from the issue, cool down, and come back to it later. Wiki will still be here. Jinxmchue 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : Please note that even this review is being targetted by an organized effort from the politically motivated deletionists. Deletionists NBGPWS 19:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that accusing editors of being part of a conspiracy is incivil and violates policy. --Coredesat 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no cabal, seriously there isn't. --NuclearZer0 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For crying out loud. Can't people put aside their politics on Wikipedia and just look objectively at the criteria? Must every AfD on a politically-controversial topic degenerate into these silly campaigns? VoiceOfReason 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The fact that they actually AfD'd the 'Nigerian Yellowcake Forgery' article, calling it an (Anti) Bush Conspiracy Theory should tell you something. NBGPWS 20:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't know who "they" is, and I don't really care. It's plain that some people in both the pro-deletion and anti-deletion camps took it upon themselves to make a spectacle and a mockery of this AfD, and shame on them all. VoiceOfReason 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restart the AfD, this AfD was a train wreck, to say the least, and any consensus is extremely difficult to determine. I was originally going to close it myself before asking for assistance. It needs to be restarted (and semi-protected) so a consensus can easily be determined and reached without flamewarring and conspiracy accusations. --Coredesat 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I could easily be in support of this, as long as an admin or two keep close watch on the new AfD and remove personal attacks.--Rosicrucian 19:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It might also be nice if any new Afd consited of just votes, no lengthy comments and back and forth bickering. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. The whole purpose of AfD is to achieve consensus, with the closing admin weighing the merits of the positions on both sides. If AfD were a pure vote count, you may be sure that any controversial article will be targetted by bad-faith campaigns even moreso than now. VoiceOfReason 20:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment With the HBO documentary Hacking Democracy, which features Mr. Stepehenson debuting on Nov 2, any deletion prior to this date is premature. I encourage reinstatement, and we can all work to improve the article. As Derex argued convincingly "As for notability, the subject had multiple mainstream media coverage of his work on black box voting as I mentioned, He is in an HBO movie, there were 3 articles cited from the Seattle Weekly and other west coast publications, he is in articles cited from the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Guardian (London),plus a story on Fox News. Several of these mention his national campaign for voter verified paper trails and his Secretary of State candidacy. Many Wikipedia bio articles have far less national or international coverage of notability." NBGPWS 20:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe you're quoting someone else there, though I did find the civerage sufficient for a weak keep. Derex 10:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Given that, I'm now willing to endorse the deletion. Given how the AfD went, and how this DRV is going, I don't think it's even going to be possible to have a civil discussion on this. Until this documentary airs (and it hasn't, so we have no idea how he will even be covered in it, if at all), he fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should have visited the HBO page on the documentary before declaring "we have no idea how he will even be covered in it, if at all". You're 100% wrong. He's listed by name and I understand that he's featured at length. HBO's Hacking Democracy NBGPWS 21:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Here is the record of Stephenson's name in the HBO documentary:

As the scope of her mission grew, Harris drew on the expertise of other computer- science experts, politicians and activists, among them: Andy Stephenson, candidate for secretary of state in Washington state; Susan Bernecker, Republican candidate in New Orleans; Kathleen Wynne, an activist from Cleveland; Hugh Thompson, director, Security Innovations, Inc.; Ion Sancho, Florida's supervisor of elections; and Harri Hursti, a computer-security analyst. Academics, public officials and others seen in interview footage include: Deanie Low, supervisor of elections, Volusia County, Fla.; Mark Radke, marketing director of Diebold; David Cobb, presidential candidate, Green Party; Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones of Ohio; and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.

There are a number of additional paragraphs with more names. That doesn't give me confidence that he will be "featured at length". GabrielF 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have to agree. The page you link to is a smashing source for Bev Harris, but not for Andy Stephenson. It remains - as stated above - that we don't and cannot know how he will be covered in it until it airs, and your say-so simply is not good enough. Jinxmchue 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• LOL! The whole part on Volusia County prominently features Mr. Stepehenson. His PHOTO is on this page. Hhacking Democracy Never have I seen such a blatant concerted effort to squash and suppress important information that documents conservative malfeasence. Some might call it cowardice redefined! NBGPWS 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• So you've seen the show before it's aired and know for an absolute fact that he's "prominently featured?" That's quite a feat! Nonetheless, it is still only your say-so, and that simply will not do for the purposes of Wiki. As for the picture on the HBO page, it is hardly noteworthy, if it's even him. He certainly isn't the focus of the photo. And I think you should can the personal attacks. They're not helping your arguments. Jinxmchue 03:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

and comments like this:

• 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)
• 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)

Hit SquadHistory Deleting articles 'for fun'. Don'r help yours. NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I've seen your "proof" of a "vast right-wing 'deletionist' conspiracy" posted in many places. Quite frankly, your accusations are groundless and disruptive. If you have a dispute you wish settled, please follow the Wiki guidelines for it and cease throwing out personal attacks. And incidentally, your silence on my major points speaks volumes about their veracity. Thank you. Jinxmchue 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sustain deletion, AfD is not a vote count and the admin made his judgement based on the information presented by both sides of the debate. --NuclearZer0 19:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - the admin made his judgment, and I've no doubt it was made in good faith, but I believe it was erroneous. I don't believe that rough consensus was achieved; there was no dominant position of the non-sock commenters. VoiceOfReason 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sustain deletion - NN, POV/vandal magnet. Violated WP:BIO. - Crockspot 20:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the deletion. No consensus was reached whatsoever, and the article met WP:BIO easily. Closing administrators are not supposed to base decisions on their personal opinion of the material involved. BenBurch 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any evidence that this was decided on the personal opinion of the admin? --Tbeatty 21:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon the closing of an AfD, especially one with so many participants and such heated opinions as this one, the closing admin should provide the community with a brief explanation of his or her rationale. In this instance, the closing admin's sole statement was: "The result was Delete, per WP:BIO." The most natural interpretation is that the deletion was not based on an assessment of whether there was consensus, but rather on the admin's personal opinion of the merits. We can, consistent with WP:AGF, give the admin's words their most natural interpretation. JamesMLane t c 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing WP:BIO would imply his interpretation of policy, not his personal opinion of the content. It seems he weighed the arguments and found a policy violation. It's not a vote. --Tbeatty 01:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sustain deletion and protect it from being recreated (trust me - it'll save future headaches of having to re-delete it over and over). While I supported keeping the article, I really can't argue against its deletion. Given what certain factions want the article to look like (VERY non-NPOV [6]) and the fact that many of the people who felt very strongly about keeping it did nothing to try to improve the article and simply complained about some silly, imagined "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" to delete it (complaints that continue here, in fact), I really don't see any reason to overturn the result. In the end, the concensus was delete and the arguments for it were more convincing than for keeping it. Jinxmchue 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

*Request relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stephenson. From the closing administrator's comments, decision was based upon the closing administrator's personal opinion about the content rather than consensus of the community. An impartial examination of the discussion would reveal that there was no consensus on this article whatsoever, with established editors favoring keep being in the slight majority. BenBurch 21:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC) :This is already being reviewed below. Naconkantari 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC) This was moved from an incorrect section BenBurch has already voted.

• Endorse closure My strong bias is to endorse closures unless they are obviously wrong. AFD is not a vote, so the nose count is irrelevant, the strength of the arguments is what is most important. (For example, had the article been shown by one person to be based on a copyright violation, and 100 other people wanted to keep it for any or all reasons, the closing admin is supposed to close as a delete due to the copyright violation.) Unfortunately, in addition to the external spamming for both sides of the discussion, we had a discussion that almost entirely consisted of low quality discussion. And we got a low quality close at the end, not one with a solid explanation of the closure rationale. Sigh. Well, we all knew this review was coming... and here it is. The strongest keep arguments were made by Jayron32 and VoiceOfReason. Neither one contained both an explanation of how he met WP:BIO in their eyes and a specification of the sources that established it. VoiceOfReason had a specific criteria. About two hours after VoiceOfReason's opinion, I reviewed the article and discussion and issued the contrary opinion that the he did not meet that specific WP:BIO test because the only reliable source in which he was the primary subject was his obituary. Jayron32 was less clear as to the specific tests, but did add sourcing to the article. The strongest deletion arguments were those by Wwwwolf and myself (GRBerry). Both of these opinions were issued after Jayron32 added sourcing to the article. So I think they are stronger arguments than the keep arguments, but that is a decision that reasonable Wikipedia editors could differ on. As I believe that the stronger arguments were made by the deletion side, I can endorse deletion. The numbers count (after eliminating anonymous, single purpose, and vandalism accounts) meant I could have endorsed a no consensus close also. I wouldn't be able to endorse a keep closure for this discussion; fortunately we don't have one. So I can follow my bias and endorse the closure. (Should it prove necessary to relist, I ask Xoloz to semi-protect the new discussion and everyone else to make explicit arguments from policy - keep opiners to make it clear which sources support notability on which criteria of WP:BIO (or other standard) and delete opiners to make it clear which sources they evaluated, rejected, and why.) GRBerry 03:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I won't offer an opinion on whether the article should be relisted but I wholeheartedly agree with GRBerry's conditions for relisting - otherwise it will just be another mess. GabrielF 04:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sustain And protect from readding. Reading through the comments and the original AFD I am unpersuaded of this individuals nobility and I find the decision to delete correct. It seems quite apparent to me that most(but certainly not all) of the efforts in keeping the article are simply politically motivated and/or attempts to create a "memorial" of sorts on Wiki. Thats not what wiki is for. I feel that Naconkantari reached the correct decision and I see no reasons to overturn. Dman727 04:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment :Comments from the deletionists to provide context:

• 04:22, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (noting no more AfDs)
• 04:21, 5 October 2006 Aaron (Talk | contribs) (all gone! now what will we do for fun?)

Deletion Squad History Deleting articles 'for fun'! NBGPWS 05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• What the heck is a deletionist? Is that another attempt at humor ala "scholarly tome"? Just curious if I should be chuckling or annoyed by personal attacks.Dman727 07:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• You should try not to label your fellow wikipedia editors, especially since your use seems to be in a negative light, "Deletion Squad" / "deletionists" etc. --NuclearZer0 12:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• That the AfD was placed on a userpage noticeboard has no bearing on this Deletion Review. The Deletion Review Process is intended to see if the closing admin did the right thing, and your continued harping on this page, vandalism and WP:POINT violations are making a circus out of this. You've already been blocked for an hour, and subsequently for a day, all for the same reason. Stop this nonsense.--Rosicrucian 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Coredsat and GRBerry. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sustain the deletion per Tbeatty and Dman727. JungleCat talk/contrib 14:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Sustain The decision was made after extensive debate. Let it stand. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I don't know if I would have closed it as delete, but there are no plausible arguments presented here for overturning that decision. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Failure of the closer to accurately discern the consensus is a plausible argument in my mind. Indeed, this entire discussion should be about whether the closer 1) accurately discerned the strength of the arguments, 2) accurately discerned consensus, or 3) accurately closed the discussion contrary to consensus but in line with mandatory policy. I happen to think they were close enough to right, but the nomination is a plausible argument in my mind. GRBerry 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Seems to be that the very fact of such a vigorous debate here by well-established editors is prima facie evidence that there was not "consensus". That's the objective is it not? So a "no consensus" closure seems most reasonable to me, which should not prejudice any future debates after the article has a bit of time to evolve. Derex 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, a good portion of the "vigorous debate" here is not about the merits of the close, it is about the merits of the article (or even worse, accusations of a conspiracy). The only discussion that is relevant is about whether the close was correct, the rest of it is just wasting everyone's time and making it harder for the DRV closer to do their job. GRBerry 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't really see your point. There is clearly considerable controversy whether the closing admin properly read consensus. To the extent that some people are still argueing the merits of the case, that simply mirrors the original lack of consensus in the AFD. I mean, if most people agreed about either the closure or the article, then we wouldn't be here yapping about the whole thing. Derex 11:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Policy overrides consensus. Citing WP:BIO is policy. 100:1 in favor of keep is still a delete if the article fails to meet policy. THis article was majority delete plus it has policy issues. Delete it. Tbeatty 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy VoiceOfReason 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• He failed both the WP:BIO guideline for notability as well as the WP:BLP policy as it related to accusations against PayPal and bloggers. --Tbeatty 01:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I asked earlier, I'll ask again: how is it possible for this article to violate WP:BLP when it's not a biography of a living person? VoiceOfReason 03:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The good people who were defamed at PayPal and the conservative bloggers accused of contributing to Andy's death are, indeed, living people. --Tbeatty 05:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Again, with respect, containing false and/or defamatory information does not make this article a violation of WP:BLP. It may have said bad things about some people, but that doesn't make it a biography of those people. The article was a biography of Stephenson, who is not living, and therefore the article can't violate WP:BLP. If it did in fact contain false and/or defamatory information, the remedy is rewrite, not deletion.

The fact is that this article was no violation of policy which justified ignoring the lack of consensus, and there was no consensus. VoiceOfReason 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The meaning of "Policy overrides consensus" is spelled out in the section that Tbeatty links to:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies . . . . (from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus)

By contrast, WP:BIO isn't one of those key policies. In fact, it isn't a policy at all; it's a guideline.

Furthermore, even if a policy were involved, it might be meaningful to say that "Policy overrides consensus" if five people favored deletion based on a policy (or even a guideline) and 20 favored retention based solely on the subject's being a nice guy. In this instance, however, experienced Wikipedians who applied the WP:BIO guideline divided on whether the article qualified. There simply was no consensus on that point. To say that the closing admin should ignore the numbers and close the AfD based on the side that he or she happens to prefer would give far too much weight to the closing admin's position on a contested issue. That isn't the procedure contemplated by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. JamesMLane t c 07:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The allegation that anyone who !votes Delete is part of the conspiracy to conceal The Truth^TM about the Evil Gubmint's role in the 9/11 attacks is patently absurd, as indeed are the conspiracy theories themselves. Naconkantari's close is valid, and the delete arguments are also valid. This is a very minor figure and there is insufficient data on which to base a verifiably neutral biography. Guy 11:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For the record, I'm the one who called for this deletion review, and I never alleged the existence of a conspiracy. In fact, in the AfD itself I specifically said that I do not share the subject's politics. The arguments for deletion may be valid, but they didn't lead to a consensus. VoiceOfReason 17:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I missed that alleged allegation. I've certainly seen some concern over votestacking in the original AFD, but that's a far cry from saying that "anyone who votes delete is part of the conspiracy". Nor is that concern even the source of this debate; I believe one editor has mentioned it, so it's a strawman argument. I see no less hyperbole in your own comment here than in the remark by NBGPWS to which you presumably allude above. Derex 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Guy. --Aaron 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Guy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist per GRBerry's relist suggestion. *Sparkhead 22:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Sufficient grounds were presented in the article and the debate to show the subject was notable based on numerous mainstream writeups and a current HBO movie. The article was edited to be NPOV. Even discounting alleged SPA's the tally was about 25 for deletion, many of those simple votes without extended reasons, and 20 against, not any sort of consensus, and hardly a rousing call to delete and protect against recreation. The fact of his life, his work, and his death cannot be WP:BLP violations per se. Edison 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per GRBerry. More importantly, endorse GRBerry's comment. (BTW, the only mainstream writeup of this poor guy I've seen was a (rather good) human interest story in the Seattle Weekly.) CWC(talk) 10:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)