Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 1

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

1 November 2006

Empires

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires

This article discussed the Empires total conversion modification for Half Life 2. It was deleted, and changed to redirect to Empire, by kingboyk after the AFD process. The arguments against the article were, by the end of the AFD, based primarily on WP:Notability. In his closing comment kingboyk, who must have been able to understand that nonsensical afd in order to simply delete it, states that "Looking at the opinions of established editors, and looking at the points raised, there would appear to be a consensus to delete." Among all contributors to the talk page there was no consensus. The deletion consensus existed only among established wikipedia editors. Because all points raised had reached no consensus kingboyk's decision must have been based solely on the opinions of established editors, several of whom changed their votes based on the actions of editors within the AFD page rather than the article itself. I believe that this creates a slanted image of the page. The attention box that was placed at the top of the AFD shortly after it was begun states: "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads." Similarly, WP:AFD requests editors to "make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." If argument is to play such a large role in the AFD process, then arguments posted by all editors, not simply established ones, must be considered. From the closing comment I do not believe this was done, and I therefore request that the deletion decision be reconsidered. FalconXVI 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• In addition I would like to note that new information has been brought up in this deletion review, and I would like to argue for a review of notability based on that information. The Empires mod is distributed through the well known, independant online distributor Fileplanet.com, which satisfies the notability requirements of WP:WEB. Scroll down to 23:24 11/4 post for the expanded argument. FalconXVI 00:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my decision was indeed weighted towards the opinions of established users, which is I believe policy. (i.e. I didn't take any notice of single purpose accounts like the one which has just opened this deletion review or of the flood of anons who came here from other sites). Notability wasn't established. I welcome this review, however, and entirely expected it: one doesn't close a troublesome AFD against a crowd of campaigners without getting it reviewed, right? --kingboyk 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

True, true. And it is policy to weigh opinions of more established users, but only to a certain extent. Regardless of the character of the poster any argument is still valid and must be considered, albeit within the context of Wikipedia. FalconXVI 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when it becomes clear that most of the new users are meatpuppets voting to keep an article because they like it, it's pretty evident that these users aren't here to improve the encyclopedia. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it seem better to start the AfD over again if something like that happens? Havok (T/C/c) 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to NeoChaosX: The character of the poster should be irrelevant if the arguments are valid. AFD policy is that the AFD discussion is not a vote. Meatpuppet posts along the lines of "Keep This page is awesome!" should be discounted, as should those similar to: "Delete This page sucks!" However, posts with valid arguments should not be. It is the job of whoever closes the discussion to weigh the arguments within the context of Wikipedia. This includes arguments made by both unique editors with hundreds of credits to their names and new editors, regardless of the purpose for which their account was created; valid argument cannot be discounted simply because the one who posts it is new. FalconXVI 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In reply to kingboyk: Is it then also the policy of Wikipedia to disregard the contributions of new users to the article itself as well as their opinions on the AfD? --Chahk42 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - Get a clean AFD underway, the one just closed was a farce. You'd have to police the next AFD like a Nazi though, and although the fanboys may have acted like retards the article did undergo some improvement during the AFD. - Hahnchen 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak endorse delete - Though the AFD was a mess, Kingboyk says he managed to wade through all the nonsense, so I think that should count for something. It appears to have been closed with respect to the proper guidelines as well. The AFD was a mess though, and probably discouraged more established admins from participating, which is why this is a weak endorse. Btw, I was the one who redirected it to Empire, which is what it should probably be anyway. Wickethewok 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha, Kingboyk just skipped through the posts that had red links on them. Thats not going through the nonsense, thats just being lazy. He only took the consensus of the writers that had 20 jillion edits. "You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~ at the end. Happy editing!" Please remove that notice, since it's painfully obvious that this isn't the case since our opinion are useless Makiyu 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point towards the precendent of the Dystopia (computer game) article, who's first AFD resulted in a "Keep," despite the lack of evidence to its notability. A new AFD seems to me to be reasonable, provided that all arguments will be heard and weighted in the context of Wikipedia without respect to the character of those posting them. I make no accusations, but to consider argument irrelevant simply because a poster is new, or posting under an SPA, is illogical. FalconXVI 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and Comment I got an email during the first AfD from someone involved with this. Apparently at least some of them mistakenly believed the dedicated Empires wiki website was what was being considered for deletion, not the Empires wikipedia article! So it's no wonder some folks were fighting tooth-and-nail to keep it. That said, the AfD looks to have been properly closed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse delete This review starts with two propositions from the proposer, FalconXVI, that:

• "The deletion consensus existed only among established wikipedia editors".
• "arguments posted by all editors, not simply established ones, must be considered"

So the question posed is whether the narrow consenus is sufficient basis for deletion. (This is a deletion review, not a re-run of the AFD, so I will set aside the substantive issues for now). The guidance is clear:

• WP:AFD says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight."
• Wikipedia:deletion policy says "Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus."

So, even on FalconXVI's evidence, Kingboyk has acted quite properly, in full compliance with existing policy. If FalconXVI disagrees with the policy, the approriate course of action is to follow the processs to seek a change in the policy; but unless and until the policy is changed, we have clear agreement that policy was followed correctly.

This review consists of an SPA asking us to not only ignore wikipedia policy, but to re-run the AFD giving a green light to the sockpuppets and meatpuppets and those with undeclared COIs. Bad idea: that would make for an AFD even more horrendous than the one which has just closed.

There are plenty of other substantive issues which could be discussed (yhough I'd prefer not waste more time on this). However, only one othr substantive point is raised, where Falcon cites the example of a game which passed AFD despite lacking evidence of notability. This sounds like a rogue decision, but if we take it as a precedent we might as well delete WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• "There is, of course, nothing wrong with single purpose accounts as such." -WP:SPA And therefore, to ignore arguments from an SPA, or a series of SPAs, is not only illogical, but also downright lazy, and only tenuously within Wikipedia Policy. There is nothing within Wikipedia policy that states that one may disregard the arguments of an SPA. I will grant you that the opinions (not arguments) of established editors may be given more weight in the consensus in order to ensure that the decision is in the interests of Wikipedia. However everything about WP:AFD encourages open discussion. For this guideline to be any more than a myth arguments from all sides, though not nescessarily opinions from all sides, must be counted. Due consideration must be given to all valid arguments in order to follow Wikipedia policy. There is no evidence that any comments within the AFD were made on bad faith (in fact WP:AGF shows that assuming such would be against wikipedia policy), therefore even in your evidence there is nothing that expressly states that the comments may be discounted. There is nothing within wikipedia policy that states that opinions of those with undeclared COIs is to be discounted (unless the post is in bad faith, which, if assumed as it must be in order to use this in a relevant argument, is against Wikipedia Policy). And there is nothing within wikipedia policy that expressly states that "Arguments of sock-puppets and SPAs are to be discounted."

Sockpuppeting by connotation implies that a single user is using numerous accounts in order to pad a vote. But even if numerous, seperate arguments were brought up by a single person acting under different accounts the arguments would still be valid. Sockpuppeting should be all but irrelevant to this review as, unless AFD process is a vote, the opinions of sockpuppets would be discounted anyway, and only their arguments would remain.

The question is not whether a narrow consensus is a basis for deletion, it is whether or not arguments from all sides must be considered when looking for that consensus in an AFD that was as contested as this one was. I am not arguing on consensus, I am arguing on whether or not the decision is in reasonable compliance with Wikipedia policies. Because there is nothing within Wikipedia policy that explicitly forbids them, and since there are many Wikipedia policies that must, if they are to truly be considered guidlines, endorse them, arguments made by new accounts must be considered if Wikipedia policy is to be followed. I do not believe they were.

I am curious as to why you believe that we would need to delete WP:NN. If we are to follow your interpretation of notability, we might logically delete WP:WEB. Why might we delete it? Because the first and third criteria were both met within the AFD, and yet their mentions were ignored throughout the AFD. One of the reasons I would endorse a rerun of the AFD discussion is because it did not seem by the end that either side (for the most part) was listening to reasoned argument, and because of that accurate Wikipedia consensus could not be judged; consensus cannot be reached unless both sides of a debate are willing to be convinced by the opposing side.FalconXVI 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Falcon, one of the major difficulties in this AFD was the persistent refusal by some participants to accept wikipedia policy, and the same thing is happening here. You say that "nothing within Wikipedia policy that states that one may disregard the arguments of an SPA". Wrong, wrong, wrong: says WP:DEL#Abuse_of_deletion_process "Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus." WP:DEL is policy, and your persistent refusal to acknowledge that is rather disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Re:Re Refusal to accept Wikipedia policy was split pretty much down the middle in the AFD; both sides disregarded those parts which disagreed with their opinion. I am not condoning these actions, and I have mentioned some of those places already. I am not refusing to acknoledge WP:DEL, nor have I ever done so. I am simply interpreting it in a way that is consistent both with other Wikipedia policies and the fundamental precepts upon which Wikipedia is based. "Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in the rough consensus" obviously refers to why sockpuppetry would be inneffective in padding a vote. But, unless I am misunderstanding the numerous policies which state that "the AFD is not a vote," the AFD is not a vote. Therefore while it is perfectly reasonable (as I have already said) to ignore the opinions, and I am making a distinction between opinion and argument, of new users while establishing consensus, it is not reasonable to ignore the arguments of new users. Doing so, again, would be downright lazy (the seeming justification for such an action violates basic precepts that keeps Wikipedia running, as it ignores any pretense of open debate). My request was for a policy which states that arguments of sockpuppets or SPAs could be discounted in the discussion. No such policy exists. If you would like to change policy by all means do so, but this is not the place to discuss it.

I would request that you think before replying about the actual argument contained in this post, and then refute it as debate says is your right. Would you like to refute any of my other arguments? FalconXVI 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It might also be noted, and this is not to diminish the importance of the essay, that WP:N is not official Wikipedia policy. FalconXVI 04:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a guideline, which means unlike an essay it has consensus support. It's there as a shortcut to ensuring WP:V and WP:NOR can be observed, which are both official policies. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Falcon: Some of the SPAs were repeatedly arguing for existing policies and guidelines to be ignored, and it would have been quite improper for the closing admin to consider those aguments (such as your own argument that an undeclared COI was irrelevant). Others were offering information to establish notability, all of which was examined repeatedly in the contributions of established editors. But that's all I'm saying on this: I don't think that you have a case, and while you have a right to disagree, I don't intend to argue this ad infinitum. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 13:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply When writing my arguments I based them on Wikipedia's existing policies, and kept them in line with those policies. The argument, then, is whether or not my arguments can be refuted on the ground that they argue in violation of policy. Since my arguments have been put forth, and must according to wikipedia policy be assumed to be in good faith, it is up to those who disagree with these arguments to refute them. If a valid argument is not refuted it remains standing. Arguing that an argument is invalid because of the character of the poster is not a valid refutation, because it is illogical. WP:COI understands this by placing no limits upon those with COI's except that they "have no right to delete [an article] or to control its content." There is nothing within WP:COI that restricts the argument of those with a COI. (Because nothing within COI addresses argument, and because those with COI's were not attempting to delete or control information, the undeclared COI is irrelevant. That was the essence of that argument.) If we had been asking for Wikipedia's policies to be ignored, the refutation would have been easy- it would need to say simply that because of X and because of Y, this argues for violation of policy. The refutation argument must then defend itself from its own refutation, as is the nature of debate. Similar to you, I believe that I have a case, and I also agree that you have the right to disagree. But then, that is what these discussion pages purport to be for: open discussion in order to air all arguments for the judgement of an open mind. The key word in that sentence is "open." This means that whoever oversees the article's deletion must approach it without having formulated an opinion and must consider all arguments on both sides of the issue before rendering judgement. It is always your right to cease argument. I intend to continue to refute arguments that I feel are illogical in either precept, method, or conclusion. FalconXVI 01:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Relist - But only because the guidelines say I should. I don't see why the article was listed for AfD in the first place, because the reasons given do not match deletion criteria and there was no attempt at improvement (save for the one prod that was adhered to and removed) or dialog on the talk page beforehand. While the original article did leave a lot to be desired and indeed did not meet the reasons for AfD (wrongful or not), plenty of proof had been submitted that it in fact did meet the requirements. Missing sources and a poorly written article are reasons for improvement, not deletion. I do suggest a rename to Empires (video game), disambiguate Empires to Empire (as wicketthewock graciously did already) and putting the proper referrals in place. The AfD discussion was a nasty mess though, but I think all parties involved did something wrong at one point. L3TUC3 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion There's no reason to believe a new AfD would produce less crap than this one. Kudos to the closing admin for reading through this mess. ~ trialsanderrors 01:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Wading through the AFD (boy it grew after I opined), I see no actual independent reliable sources to establish notability. There is one image of something that might be one, but without the data needed for another editor or a reader to use it for verification. The old article, even the cleaned-up version was far far too much a game guide and far to far from being an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As regards the other here mentioned article Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability is the correct answer. It wont shock me if in months to years, the mod does merit an article (which should be written in accordance with WP:FORGET and have notability established in accordance with WP:INDY, but "Empires" is absolutely not the right title for it. Empire (computer game) is already a disambiguation page, so the posisble future article should end up at something like Empires (Half-Life 2 mod). We want admins to close AFD discussions in line with policy even against an overwhelming consensus the other way, so we certainly don't object to them following the explicit authorization to ignore opinions of newer users that are not in line with the policy and guidelines worked out by long standing Wikipedia editors. GRBerry 02:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I cite the Dystopia article as precedent not because it is included, but because its article, when similarly situated (under AFD on grounds of notability with similar, if not fewer, references than Empires), was kept. The precedent is not in the inclusion of the article, but in the decision resulting from its AFD. There are numerous explained references for Empires (many of which were not, I believe, considered in full, judging from the fact that many of them were ignored) if one takes the time to look through that mess of an AFD for them. Rerunning the AFD process would likely both somewhat clean the AFD page and allow these issues, and others (the mod is distributed through several well known independant websites (fullfilling notability requirements of WP:WEB)), to air . Naturally noone would object to admins closing discussions by following policy, but the evidence does not show that this was done. FalconXVI 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I believe that image you talk about is a scan from Computer Games magazine. I gave the exact month, issue, page and section, have the magazine in my possesion and made a scan of it. Sounds like enough data to verify the information if you wish to actually do so. There's also another image; a scan from a german gaming magazine called PC Action. I can find the print information of PC Action, June 2006, page 136 in that same image. There's a difference between verifiability and verified. Please make a call to the respective offices to assert that they're not a fake references if you have doubts somehow. And that still leaves the links provided to independent websites and references to magazine articles I don't know of that featured the subject of the HL2 mod Empires (or even the Battlefield42 version) --L3TUC3 00:26, 4 November 2006 (

• Sidenote I would like to point out a potential massive flaw in logic. Certain people have cited over and over that many of the arguments came from SPAs. While it is true that several people may have created accounts in response to the start of the AfD, it is flawed to assume that they have made no other contribution to Wikipedia. I have made it a point to anonymously correct grammar errors of various scales wherever I browse. Unfortunately, I am on dial-up, and as such there is no proper record of my corrections save a list of IP addresses spanning two or three IP ranges. Thus, I would caution the old hands here about the dangers of false assumptions. Stating that such-and-such has made no other contribution to Wikipedia is inherently flawed. All you can know for sure is that you have no RECORD of any contribution. Also note that in spite of one particular admin strongly noting on several occasions that editing of another's comments is quite thoroughly against policy, someone made it a point to edit and split a post I had made. I had meant this post to be a unified impact on a reader to give a sense of scale on the flaws of many of the arguments for deletion. As such, I question the motives of whoever decided to conveniently re-arrange my comment. --Niarbeht 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply editing on a dialup must be difficult, but logging in is a fairly simple and light-weight operation, so I don't see how being on a dial-up prevents a user accumulating an edit history.
    As you know, I am the admin the who split your post. It's not something I much like doing or having done to my contributions, but there are some situations where it is appropriate as the lesser of a choice of evils. However, please note that I did not "edit and split" your post: I split it. I did not alter any of the words you wrote, nor did I remove any, and I did not add any words and attrribute them to you.
    The reason that I split that particular post (as a form of refactoring) was that it was very long, and raised a large number of separate points, which could be most clearly followed by separate replies. This was, I have to say, a margin call: the post which I split was in substance a massive ad hominem attack on a group of editors, which condemned them for legitimately pointing out problems such as sockpuppetry, and made that condemnation largely by ignoring policy such as WP:DEL. The only reason I didn't delete your diatribe was that I was one of the people named it. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply First off, I never made an account because I didn't see a need to. I didn't understand that on Wikipedia, a person is judged solely on the length of his contribs, and not on the weight of his arguments. It seems my faith in humanity was betrayed once more. There are people out there, you know, who are just fine with doing right in total anonymity, without recognition of any sort. As for sockpuppetry, I can validly say that, to my knowledge, I did not observe one person post through several accounts. Admins likely have access to the IP addresses being used in posts, but I don't, so I can't make assumptions. While it may be distressing to you to see sockpuppeting occur (if any actually did, I never saw an admin explicitly state that several accounts were posting from the same IP address), please remember that sockpuppeting should not be considered evidence in either direction. Nor, for that matter, should the negative actions of people outside the discussion process. Now then, as to whether or not my post was a massive ad-hominem attack, I'd like to point out that an ad-hominem attack is an "attack on the man." It is NOT an attack on what the person has said or done, but on the person's self. I did NOT come out and say "BrownHairedGirl is an idiot." I did point out flawed statements. The difference, though possibly small in your mind, is quite important.--Niarbeht 09:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, this was a valid (and bold) closure per policy; it is extraordinarily hard to provide credible sources for mods and their significance. There is surely some other project where they can be documented; they almost invariably get deleted here for failing core policies. Guy 10:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Which policies would those be? WP:RS for which extra sources were added, WP:V which was a truism because of WP:RS, WP:NN which is easily asserted with the added sources or WP:SOFTWARE which points out that it's obviously notable? AfD policy and discrimination towards new users seem to be the main objection for this information to be included or regarded at all. L3TUC3 06:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

UTC)

• Comment: parts of this discussion are in danger of becoming a rerun of the AFD, which is not what I understand DRV to be for. However, trying to keep the discussion focused on reviwing the closing admins' decision, I'll make several points.
  • I hope can we agree that WP:V/WP:RS and WP:NN are separate issues. A magnificently-sourced article may be written on a subject which is not notable, or there may be a grave deficiency of sources on a notable subject. The issue identied by the closing admin was notability.
  • It seems to be agreed that the key issue wrt notability is whether it was reasonable to agree with the consensus that notability was not established. First, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposal, not a guideline or poicy. The relevant WP:WEB test of notability requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". That word "multiple" is ambiguous: [Miriam Webster defines "multiple"] as "consisting of, including, or involving more than one", but the COED defines "multiple" as "having or involving several parts or elements", and defines "several" as "more than two but not many". The term "trivial" is partially defined in WP:WEB, but there's fuzziness there too.
• I hope we can all agree that the most notable games have thousands of reviews and other print media coverage as evidence of notability; there also seems to be agreement that the evidence bundle supporting the claim of notability for this article included only two printed articles. It seems to me that it was reasonable to conclude that the two printed reviews available did not meet that test (that is not the same as saying that everyone should agree, just that this was a reasonable assessment): two is a marginal number, and one of the reviews was pretty short. The secondary question, then, is whether the online evidence of notability should have tipped the balance. None of the online evidence I saw was so clearly from reliable sources that it added up to enough to make the consensus perverse. Sure, some folks clearly made a different judgment call, but I hope that lack of unanimity is not enough to overturn any AFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • 23:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)(contribs)} 08:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I agree, I would hate to see this degenerate into another AFD. I also agree that the key issue is notability. Your analysis overlooks a critical issue. The word "published" is also ambiguous. According to WP:WEB "this criterion includes published works in all forms." So, according to WP:WEB, internet publications are also valid. And therefore the internet reviews that were posted as references are valid. Even one of these tips the balance to "more than two" when combined with the print article. Furthermore WP:WEB states that an article must fullfil "any one of the following criteria." In addition to the first criteria, which according to your definition of both "multiple" and "several," and WP:WEB's definition of "published" has been met (a fact that in and of itself fulfils the notability requirement), the article's subject also meets WP:WEB's third criteria: "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators." To site one example (and a full list of current third party distributors is posted on the Empires mod site here), Fileplanet is a site that is both well known within the industry and independant of the mod's creators, which also distributes Empires. Therefore both the first and third WEB notability guidelines are met, and therefore the overall notability requirement is met. It seems, then, that the only way that these guidelines could have been overlooked was by ignoring the arguments which contained them, which as I have already argued violates Wikipedia policy. If you wish to change Wikipedia guildelines or policy you are free to do so, but this is not the place to argue for that.

• Reply to the unsigned comment above; Fileplanet is an advertising-supported site which makes its business through selling advertising to downloader: it is therefore not an independent site per WP:WEB criteria #1, because unlike a print magazine or a review-only site, it has a commercial stake in the success of the products it hosts. According to http://www.fileplanet.com/95287/0/section/Mods-&-Conversions , Empires is not in Fileplanet's list of top 5 most downloaded mods in the last 7 days. I haven't checked other download sites, but if they operate on a similar basis, they cannot be counted as independent. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply One wonders why you didn't read the entire post. Perhaps you should have, I signed the end of it. Fileplanet is an advertising supported site that makes its business through selling advertising. That is not disputed. And perhaps that means that under narrow interpretation it is not wholly independant. One also wonders, however, why you didn't read WP:WEB in its entirety. WP:WEB states that the distributor must be "independent of the creators." Unless Empires has bought advertising space on this website, and it has not, Fileplanet can be considered a distributor that is "independant of [Empires] creators." There are other distributors linked on the Empires website's mirror page which are also independant, according to WP:WEB. And this is in addition to, say, the moddb review, which tips the balance to "multiple" (even by your definition) non-trivial published works. The fact that Empires does not show up on Fileplanet's "most downloaded mod's in the last 7 days is an assertion that is both irrelevant and, if you think about it, downright absurd. Empire's has not released a new version in some time, and so believing that any "most downloaded mods in the last 7 days" list would list it is absurd. As an example, the mod Counterstrike does not appear on that list either, but noone will argue against that mod's notability. The assertion is also irrelevant because Wikipedia's notability critera have already been met, according to two (not just one, as is required) provisions of WP:WEB. The fact that Empire's is not on this list does not change that fact. Your previous post's content, including your comment that the post was, you believed, unsigned, makes it seem as though you are simply trying to "win," rather than to actually determine if, according to Wikipedia policy, the page should have been deleted. I will have to assume, in good faith, that the admin who closes this discussion will read and consider the relevant references and policies. There does not seem to be any objective argument against the mod's notability. FalconXVI 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to BrownHairedGirl: Since FilePlanet, FileFront and Mod_DB are all recognized on Wikipedia itself, all of these sites must be valid sources and should count towards establishing the notability of Empires mod. --Chahk42 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• This deletion review is then to be on the basis of both information that was not posted in the AFD at the time and the question of whether or not the decision violated policy. FalconXVI

• Reply I'm sorry to point something out to BrownHairedGirl, but most of those games that have hundreds to thousands of print articles also have tens of millions of dollars in development and advertising. Let's do some math involving scale, shall we? Let's assume that the typical full-fledged development game (not a mod like Empires, a GAME with a REAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIO backing it up, with MONEY) has a budget around $10,000,000 (ten million dollars) for programming, content development, advertising, etc. Ten million dollars buys a hell of a lot of man-hours of work. Now, let's look at Empires. It has a development budget of... Oh, that's right, there's no company backing it up. It doesn't have a budget. Zilch. Nada. Zip. This would create a divide-by-zero error in my math. While this would be VERY favorable for Empires in the math, it wouldn't be fair at all. So I'm going to say that Empires has a development budget of $10,000 (ten thousand dollars). This would, of course, be things like food and such the development team (consisting of what, ten or fewer consistent members compared to a "typical" game's hundreds) has consumed while working on the art and code. Now, suppose each game with a ten million dollar budget gets about a thousand articles of whatever size. That's one article per ten thousand dollars of development. Empires currently has TWO print articles per ten thousand dollars of development, and, I believe, a few Internet articles. Thus Empires, with NO studio backing, NO publisher backing, NO monetary budget (unless Krenzo buys DonMegel beer...) comes out ahead. I'm sure there must be something wrong in my math, nothing is ever this easy. -Niarbeht 10:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note I'd like to note that I moved part of BrownHairedGirl's signature thingy back from the end of Falcon's post up to her thingy, where it belongs. Sorry if fixing someone else's mistake counts as a no-no. Oh, yes, the point of the preceding thingy was to illustrate one of the fallacies inherent in the pro-deletion movement regarding scale. Empires is NOT a full production game, and as such should not be subject to the same notability test as a full production game. Such an error, as far as I can tell, is one that would most likely be made by someone without proper knowledge about the difference between a full production game and a total conversion mod. While it may seem trivial to some, I could easily draw parallels to improper judgement relating to articles involving theories on advanced areas of physics or some such where it would be easy for someone new to the field to make an accidental, yet damaging, slip. -Niarbeht 11:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thank's for fixing that, I must have overlooked it when posting. Also, niarbeht, keep in mind that since the discussion takes place on wikipedia it is wikipedia's policies that must be followed. The relative merits of mods and video games are relevant only so far as they relate to wikipedia notability policy. It has been said that it is difficult for a mod to prove its notability, because it is not a full scale game. However if all arguments are considered it is easy to see that the references posted certainly do meet any objective notability criteria of Wikipedia.

• Comment replying to Niarbeht's comment above: wikipedia's policies are based on notability, not the reasons for notability or its absence. Of course advertising money buys more notability, but that's not relevant here: what matters is whether notability is established. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to note that right before the article was deleted, i added the missing link in the article's discussion page about being part of the mediawiki games and sports, however, this was useless, and instead of trying to do another AfD with a clean design, you just keep hitting a dead horse, the AfD is closed and there's nothing we can do about it. However, i don't see how somebody with 1 edit isn't trusted as much as one with 20000, if this were a police station and we wouldn't trust new cops, we might as well not have a police station. What i'm saying is that we might as well not have an online encyclopedia if there's nothing that qualifies to be added. Solokiller 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Delete, You should think your analogies through before posting. Speaking as a veteran law enforcement officer, we do not trust rookie officers. After the academy, when a rookie gets hired to a department they have to ride with a veteran officer FTO (Field Training Officer) for up to two years before they are trusted to be on the streets by themselves. L0b0t 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure: delete: (I did about 9,000 of my edits on a dial-up, by the way.) Nonce accounts are not helpful, as they demonstrate an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and a desire to register solely for a particular "vote." However, AfD is not a numerical vote. The article was lodged at a wholly inappropriate name, and the greatest bulk of our readers, past and future, who type "empires" into their search boxes will be seeking information on empire and not a mayfly-lived video game modification. The modification, such as it might be, can be and is mentioned where it belongs: with the game it is a development/parasite upon. Given that Wikipedia is not Fresh Meat.org, not Slashdot, not Game FAQs, not a web guide, not a news service, not an advertitisng medium, and not a bulletin board, anything beyond a very short overview of the modification would be warranted, and that can be easily folded into the parent game's article. The zeal of a vote is never going to replace the logic and awareness of a discussion. The presence of a Wikipedia article does not confer validity on a subject, and the absence of one does not deny that validity. As for the misapplication of phrases and clauses from policy pages by the person doing the relisting here, I have little to add. He or she is missing the point. Geogre 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reply The title is not at issue here. If it was, significant mention of it would have been made in the AFD. There is noone who objects to changing the title of the article, and such an action was even a minor suggestion within the AFD. I agree that the AFD is not a numerical vote. That is, in fact, the basis of my argument. Similarly, I agree that the zeal of a vote should not replace the logic of a discussion. Unfortunately no evidence exists that the discussion's logic was considered (which may have been because of the disorganized nature of the AFD, one of the reasons why I agree with the proposal to re-AFD the article). Please reread my arguments on precedent, as you will find that they are quite different from simply stating that "this article should be kept because another article exists." I would ask that you think about the arguments so that you can frame your refutation in a valid fashion. I am interpreting the policy pages in a way that complies with and reinforces other Wikipedia policies. This interpretation leads me to my argument (assuming that I had not considered the goals of Wikipedia within my posts would, as there is no logical evidence to suggest so, be a violation of WP:AGF). If the issue were simply that I am misinterpreting Wikipedia policy this review would have been closed with a single reply, both refuting my interpretations and arguing for a different interpretation. I am open to considering alternate interpretations, but there have been none as yet with significant and valid argument behind them. I am afraid that I must turn your own words back upon you, for it seems that it is you who is missing the point. FalconXVI 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Reply I sense the use of loaded terms in Geogre's post. Loaded terms are often indicative of strong emotions, and not indicative of decisions based on logic, reason, and fact. "Mayfly-lived," "development/parasite upon." Those terms belong more in an impassioned speech than an informed debate. Also, as a note of finality, I do not deny that editing is possible on dial-up. I simply never bothered getting an account, because I didn't realize that people actually cared how many edits they had. I didn't realize that a person's worth here was measured in numbers.--Niarbeht 09:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Note that there were third party independent sources included in the article after the AFD was posted. I made a comment on the article improvements in the AFD, these were sources from english language and german language computer games publications, which are pretty much infinitely more important and popular than anything cited in the Girly article, which was speedily undeleted due to "expert" opinion. Also note that all these were ignored due to the absolutely baffling behaviour of the socked AFD voters who instead decided to write their own paragraph on how absolutely awesome this game was. - Hahnchen 01:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Relist and rename to "Empires (computer game)" - A new AfD is in order, since the article's content itself was not taken into account by the deciding admin. Notability had been established (both printed and online reviews and interviews as well as over 250,000 verifiable download counts), and no valid arguments to the opposite were supplied. --Chahk42 01:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Valentino (band)

I would like this to be revied because I believe it was incorrectly removed from WIKI for Promotion (WP:CSD criterion G11). It is not a promotional tool used by this band, but information on the band. In the DFW area the band is well know and this was a serious article for WIKI. The phrasing of the opening sentence was misworded due to this being an exerpt from the official bio of "Valentino". A different bio has been worked up that provides information, but no promotion for the band. The band's WIKI entry has never been and will never be used as a promotional tool but rather a source of information for the band "Valentino"

Explanation: this was originally deleted on prod, and the user made an undeletion request over email. I denied the request because the article also clearly met G11. I actually undeleted and redeleted it to reflect the stronger rationale in the deletion log. - crz crztalk 22:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "Exhilarating live shows... the harmonious blend of indie rock, blues and punk that has made Valentino a local favorite... Ramon is both expressive and captivating..." etc etc. Against this deluge of syrup, no non-trivial press coverage from significant sources or any other indication that the band passes WP:MUSIC. The most valid G11 deletion I've seen yet. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, I'd have called it A7 rather than G11 but whatever. No indication the band meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC. —Angr 18:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I did not read the guidelines so we did not quote any of the bands press coverage. The band has been featured in Dallas Observer articles, Lubbock Avalanche Journal, houston Press, featured on Fox34 news in Lubbock, TX and is a regional touring act. The badn has also toured with national acts such as The Burden Brothers, The Offspring, Shiny Toy Guns. as previously stated the original text and wording comes from a promotional bio but will be changed.
  • Comment Mind showing these news articles to verfiy these claims? NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sidenote Not my issue at all. Note that things like newspaper articles can take some time to dig up sometimes, so have patience. --Niarbeht 05:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Colbert Report recurring elements

User:Night Gyr nominated this article for deletion on October 27, citing that the article violated the WP:V and WP:OR policies because it did not contain any sources. However, the majority of the users that replied stated that it should instead be kept and cleaned up (some even offered to do so), eventually resulting in 18 users advocating for the article to be kept, 8 advocating for it to be deleted, and two advocating for it to be merged. Ignoring this consensus, User:Angr deleted the article, explaining that "since this is a discussion, not a vote." Though it's true that AfD isn't a vote, what this article needs (and what seems to be the consensus among the users commenting in the AfD) is to be heavily trimmed down and sourced, not deleted. In fact, I for one am very willing to help clean the article up if it ever manages to get restored.--TBCΦtalk? 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• As I said in my summary, the arguments in favor of keeping the article weren't. They were arguments in favor of keeping The Colbert Report (which wasn't up for deletion anyway), pointing to the importance of that show in American popular culture. I didn't see any convincing counterarguments to the nominator's point that the article violated WP:NOR, and looking over the article myself I was inclined to agree. The editors of the article had nine months to source the information, and didn't. I see no reason to believe the article would be brought into conformance with policy if restored. Keep deleted. —Angr 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why not restore it and let users add citations and clean it up so that it doesn't violate WP:OR? As I noted above, I'm very willing to clean up the article. After all, if the article wasn't sourced in the past, doesn't mean it can't be sourced in the future.--TBCΦtalk? 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • At the risk of repeating myself, the editors had nine months in which they could have been sourcing the article and weren't. Why should anyone believe it would be sourced if it were restored? "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "Be naive". —Angr 14:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: how about restoring it to TBC's user space (or restore and move it there, whatever's necessary) from where it can be moved back into article space when sufficient cleanup has been done? Cheers --Pak21 14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• I thought that the article was going to be kept, and I was willing to give it a chance to improve, if someone was actually going to put in the effort. It's pretty much been a dumping ground for observations about the show, without anyone bothering to source or edit it, but I think moving to userspace or off wikipedia would give it that chance if someone really wants to work on it. I have my doubts that any work will happen, though, and it definitely doesn't belong as an article in the form that was deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article I did not participate in this AfD discussion, but if I had, it would've certainly been on behalf of keeping the article. It certainly had its problems, but nothing that couldn't be solved with a good clean up (and I, like TBC, am absolutely willing to help with that effort). The AfD absolutely created a consensus, and that consensus was to keep the article. It also wasn't as if there was IP vote-stacking; prominent editors were on both sides of the discussion, but considerably more people wanted to allow the article to exist. It doesn't have to be repeated that AfD is not a vote, but it is the job of AfD to allow a consensus to come to light, and in this instance, the consensus opinion was ignored by the editor who closed the AfD. -- Kicking222 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a lot of people "voted" to keep it, because it was people interested in the article who saw that it was up for deletion. But no one actually addressed the basic problem with the article -- not that it didn't happen to have sources, but that the information covered in it can't be sourced. One of the strongest arguments in favor of deletion I saw in the discussion was actually prefaced with the word "Keep": Lockesdonkey wrote "the only 'research' that really can be done is watching the show (or is there a book or website cataloguing this stuff that I'm not aware of?)" -- in other words, it would be impossible to cite secondary sources for the claims made. Verifiability by means of reliable sources is Wikipedia policy, and if the only way to verify the information in the article is to watch the show, then the article has no business on Wikipedia. That was the thrust of the "delete" voices' argument, and that was never countered by the "keep" voices. The "keep" voices just kept saying "the show is an important part of American popular culture", which no one ever denied. There was definite consensus on that point, but unfortunately it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I'll be glad to restore the article to someone's user space so it can be worked on, provided the people who want to work on it can tell me exactly how they plan to improve it. What secondary sources are available on the topic of the recurring elements of the Colbert Report that you plan to cite? —Angr 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources can also come from scripts, reviews, etc.; not just from watching the show.--TBCΦtalk? 05:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Does TBC really have to tell the closing admin "exactly how they plan to improve" this article including "what secondary sources they plan to cite" just to get this text userfied? I get the impression from the deletion guidelines for administators that this is common courtesy, and possibly even required of the closing admin if the content of the article is not simple vandalism. -- Bailey^(talk) 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - per Angr's above statement. Wickethewok 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore (and cleanup). Angr, secondary sources do exist for some of the information in the article, since reviewers have discussed many of the specific recurring segments on the show, but beyond that, reliable sources and secondary sources are not the same thing. One of the main points that was made in this discussion was that using television shows as primary sources is explictly permitted by our WP:RS and WP:NOR. Original analysis of those sources is not allowed, but merely describing that source without analysis is permittable. So, for example, stating that Colbert has a segment called "Formidable Opponent" where he debates against himself is fair and does not need another source. Same goes with the list of minor characters, which there is clearly precident for. Personally, I think a considerable amount of information in this article is problematic, but not all of it. Since there are editors volunteering to work on it, there's no reason to nuke the whole thing. I'll stand my assessment that the article should probably be split into seperate lists of recurring segments and recurring characters, with the rest cleaned up and merged as appropriate. But deleting an article entirely because it relies on primary sources contradicts policy. -- Bailey^(talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overtun and restore (and, of course, clean up). As Bailey said, that a source is a TV show does not mean that it is 1. original research nor does it mean that it is 2. unverifiable. Perhaps hard to verify, if the show is not easily accessible, but given that everything on the Report is available online and for free from MotherLoad, as far as I can remember, anyone can check whether or not something something stated in the article is true. If that isn't verifiability, what is? Furthermore, would you have us delete everything about TV shows which haven't developed a base of people willing to write about them? Naturally, the article wasn't perfect. Finally, on a personal level, I applaud you, Angr, for having the dexterity of mind to take my argument, intended to clarify and crystallize a commonly-held opinion about verifiability and original research that (I hope!) is neither too broad nor too narrow-minded (in other words, the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD's) and transmute it into what is possibly the narrowest interpretation of OR and verifiability with regard to television ever seen. Lockesdonkey 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore - The article most certainly needs a lot of work, but, as I said in the AfD discussion and others have said here, people are willing to work on the article. Moreover, as Bailey mentioned, television shows are regarded as reliable sources, under WP:NOR, and there was in no way rough consensus. The arguments for deletion were most certainly addressed by a number of prominent users, and in all honesty, I began to stop arguing the issue because I felt that there was overwhelming support for keeping the article, and there was no way an administrator would delete it. Please don't take this as a personal attack, Angr, but deleting this article because you resent the presence of any popular culture-related articles on Wikipedia, and the neglect of "important" articles (see this page) is not fair. It is indeed a shame that more important articles are neglected, but it is no reason to delete such articles on popular culture. Similar articles to this one have survived multiple AfDs (see [[1]]), and articles such as Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches and those related to The Simpsons have been present on Wikipedia for over a year. Several such articles are adequately referenced and are quite decent, for example Themes_in_Blade_Runner. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, even the nominator thought the article was going to be kept. Need there be anymore proof that there was no consensus to delete the article? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That was a matter of what I thought would happen, not what I thought should happen. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, I was just pointing out there there was obviously no consensus. Even though AfDs are not votes, it's not simply an argument. Whichever side presents the stronger argument doesn't necessarily win; in order for the article to be deleted, the delete camp should present a significantly stronger argument and be at least close to as numerous as the keep camp (much like the conditions needed for an RfA to pass). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore per above. Article should have been kept: 8-18 is not consensus to delete. Even if the closing admin thinks that there isn't a keep consensus, it should certainly be closed as no consensus. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• endorse deletion, what part of "AfD is not a vote" do you folks not understand? If you don't present new arguments, which none of you has done, then there will be no overturning of this discussion, and the close was perfectly proper. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear! What Zoe said. Eusebeus 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I know AfD isn't a vote. I'm not even that attatched to this particular article. But I strongly feel that this should have been closed as 'no consensus'. Angr closed this AfD on the basis that no one presented arguments that effectively counter the arguments made in the original nomination. I disagree. I admit there were some unhelpful comments on either side of the discussion, but from what I can see, it was argued that:
    1. A fair amount of the information in the article is purely descriptive information sourced to The Colbert Report, which according to NOR and RS is an acceptable, reliable source;
    2. that several of Night's examples for precident were/are irrelevant -- obviously, a list of Slashdot jokes or YTMN jokes is different, since we're explicitly allowed to use TV shows as primary sources, but not forums and community websites;
    3. that precedent exists for keeping articles sourced entirely by trivial observation of a television show, such as List of vehicles in The Simpsons which survived three deletion attempts;
    4. that precedent exists for keeping articles sourced entirely by TV shows that have an even greater level of detail than this, such as articles on individual episodes, which indeed have been upheld in the AfD process repeatedly: see Bart's Dog Gets An F, or Death Has a Shadow for a non-Simpson's example;
    5. that some information in this article actually can be attributed to secondary sources since the Colbert Report has been subject to many, many reviews in print publications, even if secondary sources are sort of a red herring in this conversation;
    6. that lists of minor characters, such as the one included here, have been upheld repeatedly and are explictly allowed by our deletion policy on recurring characters, and that lists of recurring segments on a show composed entirely of segments (ie, a comedy/variety show) is entirely relevent to understanding that series, which would lack a traditional plot synopsis;
    7. that this article needs work, but is not unfixable, considering acceptable sources exist for it, and editors are obviously willing to work on it, removing original analysis and possibly refactoring content via some form of merge, rename, or split; and finally,
    8. We don't generally delete articles which are fixable simply because they're in need of cleanup -- we usually fix them.
  • I really don't mean to rant, and I empathize with the "delete" argument, since this article really in bad shape -- but I also don't see how these arguments fail to address the nominator's premise. It was widely acknowledged in the discussion that a large part of this article needs to fixed or scrapped, but there was clearly no consensus to delete. -- Bailey^(talk) 10:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And there we have it, the points made by the delete boat have been well-addressed. Even if an admin finds their side to be "winning" the argument, rough censensus is needed to delete an article, and this has certainly not been reached to delete the article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Proper close, no new evidence. Encyclopaedia cruftannica is somewhere else; the Colbert Report is notable but this was far too m uch detail and all form primary sources. We are not the Colbert Report fansite or FAQ. And anyway, the number of Colbert Report articles has tripled in the past few years. Guy 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not new evidence has surfaced, the close was ill-reasoned, and the admin obviously carries an enormous bias against articles relating to TV shows and such (see this page, then read this one). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, the fact that Colbert is responsible for vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion of Colbert-related articles. I hate vandalism just as much as you, and I have reverted many incidents of vandalism to the Elephant article, but Colbert remains to an influential figure in popular culture, and this article remains to add significantly to the subject of The Colbert Report. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Angr's actions were appropriate and based off of a badly needed proper understanding of what's needed for the project (i.e. AfD is based on discussion and policy, not simple votes). --Improv 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand that AfD is not a vote. I simply want the article to be restored and cleaned up (whether in the article namespace or the userspace) to a point in which it does meet Wikipedia's numerous guidelines and policies. After all, from personal experience, starting a new article from scratch is much more difficult than improving an older one.--TBCΦtalk? 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak relist: I would rather see a relist in this case because, while I think this articles and articles like this are useless and, in fact, non-encyclopedic, the principle for deletion was OR and V, and I don't think those apply. I agree that any conclusion drawn is OR, but I also think we're getting a little too far in our V insistence. If there are citations to the originals (links to downloads) and passing references to others who talk about regular segments and the like (and there are dozens to choose from), our authors should be freed from being simple automatons and Google bots. My feeling is that the article is properly deleted, but because of its being non-additive: it provides us no encyclopedic information, does not discuss a topic that is beyond list status, and has no appeal except to those who already know the information (which is how I define "cruft": rabid Dr. Who fans know about daleks, and an article about dalek emporer Squigglebotty IV is, essentially, repeating/reliving for the fans). Therefore, I would vote to delete the article, but I cannot feel comfortable with a deletion on NOR grounds. Geogre 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Both WP:V and WP:NOR are official policy. They absolutely apply to this and every other article. Rather than spend time and energy trying to restore this policy violation of an article, we should be tracking down all the others that are as bad or worse and deleting them too, if only so people will stop calling their continued existence "precedent". —Angr 18:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm well aware of the policies. The question is how they are interpreted. It has become fashionable lately to intrepret them so strenuously that we become a digest service, with no critical capacity. This is a mistake, a very grave one, that robs us of our expert editors, and it is a fashionable development rather than longstanding practice. People will use tu quoque and "this other one's as bad" arguments no matter what we do, so this is not an argument, either way. I would not vote to keep this article, and I am not advocating restoration. I am saying that applying NOR and V in this manner is not sufficient for overturning consensus voting. "Hunting" is a thing we do when we're hungry, not when we're trying to build, IMO. We need to prune the tangles, but crusading never has ended well for anyone that I'm aware of. Geogre 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, userfy on request. This isn't an automatically non-encyclopedic article, but if 80% of keep !votes qualify it with "needs cleanup" and nobody does it, deleting until someone steps up and offers to {{sofixit}} is a perfectly viable call. ~ trialsanderrors 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Trialsanderrors is absolutely right. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The malaise of "keep and cleanup" votes which have resulted in a lot of substandard articles being kept and almost no substandard articles being cleaned up was on the way out even before we were told to focus on quality of articles over quantity. And now it's certainly an almost paper-thin argument for overturning a properly-reasoned close. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • How is the close decision properly reasoned when the keep camp has not only addressed the delete camp's argument throroughly, but vastly outnumbers them? AfDs are not votes, but they do require rough consensus, like RfAs. An RfA would require at least 80% consesus, yet you're advocating the removal of content, of knowledge, from Wikipedia when only 25% agree with you? An admin's place is to make judgement calls on whether there is consensus and whether the delete camp's arguments have been addressed (they have, see Bailey's above comment), not with which side he or she agrees. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The admin closing the discussion did not follow Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, plain and simple. Those in favor of keeping the article presented valid arguments (see Bailey's comment above) and vastly outnumbered those in favor of deleting the article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - for all the reasons above. Just because of the whole Elephant incident... c'mon now people. --Bobak 17:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems that both sides present good arguments, and there is about an equal number of editors of each opinion, so could the article at at least be restored to someone's user space (you could restore it to mine or another user's, and I would work on it). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article I think this was a disgusting oversight by wikipedia. Why were you so lazy and willing to delete a perfectly good article? All it needed was a little cleanup and perhaps a small rewrite, and it would have been fine. If User:Night Gyr stopped for one second and actually asked for someone to clean the article up instead of rushing off and deleting it, the Colbert article would be much better off. dposse 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There were requests for cleanup and sourcing on it for a month before I listed it for deletion. Nothing was done before or after I made the AFD, even by those who said it could/should be cleaned up. I deliberately didn't jump straight to deletion, because I wanted to give it a chance, but after a month with no improvement (and several months before that with none either) it was clear that the article wasn't going to get better. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. Just clean up and source the thing.--Kross^Talk 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vernian Process

This article was deleted by User:Coredesat because according to the consensus of votes, it didn't meet the music notability guidelines. The main one being that it is not signed to a record label. However, I have no intentions of signing to a label, untill I find one that will not try to rip me off at every given opportunity. For now I give away all of my music for free. I do have a link to lulu.com where my most recent L.P. can be purchased for $8, yet if a fan can't afford that, I will happily supply them with a link where they can d-load the album for free.

It was pointed out early in the review that the article read like an advertisement. I will admit that I was new at writing wikipedia articles at the time, and had gone and changed it to reflect an encyclopedic, and non-point of view style.

I would also like to point out that this project is the first music project that has attempted to capture the spirit of the genre Steampunk. Another band Abney Park (band) adopted this same image about two years after I started my project, yet they have a valid wiki article.

I mentioned also in my deletion review that my project has been featured in national print media, as well as recieving the attention of Mick Mercer, who is the foremost authority on the Gothic genre of music. And an accomplished journalist within the music industry for well over 25 years. Upon searching for "Vernian Process" (in quotes) on google, I recieved approximately 679 hits, from various sources both national and international. I would also like to point out that this is a studio music project geared towards creating atmospheric film score material, not a rock band. So the idea of touring nationally is a non-issue. This was actually brought to my attention via a fan who saw the deletion review posted on my wiki article. Oh and another thing, all references to my project were also deleted from the List of Steampunk Works article as well. Which smells like a personal vendetta for some reason.

However the one thing that irks me more than anything, is that as an internationally recognized DJ and music connoisseur, I have spent the last 4 years attempting to create something completely unique that can not be compared to any pre-existing music and it is being deleted from wikipedia. Yet any number of no-talent artists who just rip everything else off, or emulate what has already been created can have a valid article. That just turns me off from this so called encyclopedia entirely, and makes me want to delete any information I have contributed here in the past. --FACT50 10:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• No matter how novel your works are, if we have no way to know if they're notable, how can you expect us to have an article on it? Without standards, anyone could claim to be notable enough for an article, insisting on having an entry in Wikipedia to satisfy vanity. --Improv 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• this seems to be a problem with the system, rather than with the band in question. this happens to be an area of music with which i'm familiar, and Vernian Process is definitely an important band in both the steampunk and sepiachord style histories. that it doesn't fit into the traditional categories of notoriety shouldn't be an obstacle in its specific case. i'll throw my vote in that an exception should be made, without treating it as a precedent. Whateley23 23:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting man, now hopefully someone will actually read it, and understand the notability of this project. It's hard to claim notability when you are part of a relatively young and not widely known genre. --FACT50 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: no evidence as to notability provided. No prejudice against recreation if evidence of having "been featured in national print media" is provided. --Pak21 13:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Very well here is a link to Livid Looking Glass Magazine (This is now a webzine, but my review was posted in issue #1 which was a print magazine available through various outlets such as Tower Records.) interview in Girls & Corpses Magazine. Yes I know it is a silly magazine. But it is available in print form through various outlets, as the site says. I have also been featured in various webzines Starvox, Aether Emporium, The Mick, and have links on most major Steampunk related genere sites Steampunk Database, Polish Steampunk database [ [ --FACT50 15:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the hang up about a having to have a record deal. In this day and age many artists are having successful careers with out signing their lives away to a record company. And what size record label is considered valid? Should we remove posts about various punk bands because they're work was release on tiny labels, often labels that were created by the band just to get thier music out. How is creating your own "bedroom" label different from self releasing your work through the internet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.189.42 (talk • contribs) 2 November 2006 (UTC).

See the WP:MUSIC guideline--TBCΦtalk? 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

This is an important band representing a population that is difficult quantify (that is young, poor, punk kids) but are nonetheless very active in producing our culture. Young artists which will have a signifigant impact in 20 years and have wiki mods eating crow. The criterion of "notability" the mods present is shallow. there is no way to measure the cultural impact of small bands, and if you measure their impact by their commercial status or records sold in an information age where pirated and free music make unrecordable impact on people, the standard for what is "notable" would be very mediocre as well as deceptive. and nor is there any harm done in having an extra article, especially one so unique as this. I think the mods here are abusing their power and denying freedom of information, see: 1984.Diversityrules 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: this edit is this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. Is anyone surprised? --Pak21 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a PhD in astrophysics to know mindless oppression when I see it. --Cristina Brooks, age 23.

• Well I can tell you it wasn't me. I'm not surprised though, considering I've mentioned this issue in a few Steampunk subculture forums. However I would like to get some feedback from you guys on the links I posted a few days ago. I have provided proof of notability, yet no one has said anything as of yet, let alone the people that asked for it --FACT50 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)