Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:33, 25 November 2006

< November 18	November 20 >

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

19 November 2006

Category:Stub templates

Category:Stub templates (edit | talk | history | links | logs) — (CfD)

The article was speedy deleted while I was editing the Category talk:Stub templates even with though there was a {{hangon}} message placed by its creator. See that talk page for reasons to reconsider. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The first speedy made sense, empty for 4 days is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. But you can't speedy something for reposting of deleted material unless said material went through the respective XfD discussion. Especially when it was speedied because nothing was IN it, because maybe there will be things put in. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. FYI, the page could not have been empty for 4 days, since it was created on 17 November 2006. I keep track of the pages I create and there was three template pages put in the this category right after it was created. See this history entry for proof. The Speedy deletion message was posted today as was a note informing me of it in my talk page. I just had the time to put the {{hangon}} message (as suggested in the deletion template) so I have the time to explain myself. Why all that rush? This is very frustrating for users that want to improve the WP and try follow the procedures. I keep getting the same arguments on the fact that the category was previously deleted. Again, please do read my own reasons for creating the page and tell me why my own arguments are not valid instead of bringing back references on an old debate that was held by 3 users. I did my homework, please be kind and follow proper procedures. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The first deletion was back in March 2006, by a different user. That is the one that was done for being an empty category. GRBerry 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment OH!.. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up. It's pretty hard to tell since the history is deleted with the article. ;-) Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This is where the deletion log comes in handy ;) --Sherool (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the respective XfD discussion can be found here - I've modified the header of this debate to reflect that. M a rtinp23 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per WP:CCC. ~ trialsanderrors 08:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to WP:SFD and WP:WPSS. (Radiant) 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure it should go there. It's neither a stub type nor a stub category. It's a template category. Of course, it will probably borrow some of the stub sorting structure (if too many stub templates share the same cat.) so it might be discussed in WP:WPSS, but I'm sure it would create more confusion if we treat it as a stub. Is there a discussion page for template categories ? Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 13:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~: WP:CSD#C1 does not apply in this case: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories." (emphasis mine). I do not think this is a case where WP:IAR applies, as there is no obvious improvement in deleting this category. Tizio 14:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In this case, the category was deleted first as a CfD from here and later, by me as a receation of deleted material. It seems that, after the CfD, the category was deleted by a different admin, for being empty, only making it harder to investigate (!) M a rtinp23 11:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is the rationale for deletion, endorse Tizio 08:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost baptism

This page was deleted with almost no discussion. I didn't see the page before deletion, but this is a well-known idea in Pentecostal Christianity. (I think it's completely daft, but still.) A Google search suggests that it deserved a better review. Bpmullins | Talk 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article as it was failed CSD G1 in my opinion and that of others, so I closed the discussion as WP:SNOW Delete, as it was nonsense. I endorse deletion, but I'm not concerned about it being restored and relisted on AfD, if it really deserves to go through the process. The article was a sermon, typed out in full (as such, failed WP:NPOV too!). M a rtinp23 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article, as it was, was TERRIBLE. Write a better one and put that up, don't ask for the one there to be undeleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid G1 and G12 (copyvio), WP:SNOW doesn't even come into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid Speedy G1, no AfD was necessary. Any recreation needs to conform to WP standards and policies to avoid another Speedy. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion as one of the non-admins that got to see the article. It was G1-patent nonsense. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Fails multiple policies. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Some kind of sermon, without proper context or explanation. The idea probably warrants either an article or a mention at Baptism, but it cannot be brought back as it was. As an example, here are the final two lines: "He will come out of the womb! To be numbered among the blood-washed saints!". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Also, please don't write a new one. Seriously. The discussion would be at baptism, where the concept of "baptism by the Spirit" is already covered. I.e. we shouldn't be multiplying mediocre articles at every denomination's term for central tenets of Christianity, when we should have a single excellent article. Pentecostal and charismatic views can be accomodated in the pages on the beliefs without acting as one more article to watchlist to avoid sermonizing or chauvinism. We've got a lot of iffy stuff already. When I find it, I try to correct it, but I can't guess all the names people are going to have for the rites. Geogre 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion G1.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification from those who saw the article. Close this one, please. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, pure bull (nonsense). - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Freedom and Truth

This article was suddenly and unexpectedly deleted yesterday, in the midst of an unresolved debate over the copyright status of the English translation of the original Hungarian text. I understand the copyvio concerns but no conclusion had been reached one way or the other so the deletion seems unfounded to me K. Lastochka 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, if the issue of copyright is unresolved then we need to err on the side of assuming there is a copyright problem. If the copyright issue is resolved then the article can be restored/recreated. --pgk 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, this is a single paragraph of introduction and a lengthy quote from a speech - and absolutely nothing else. So even if the copyright issue were fixed, it would belong in Wikisource not here. Nor is the phrase "for freedom and truth" evident anywhere other than the article title, it's not in the quoted text. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I understand pgk's reasoning. Guy's reasoning, on the other hand, seems flimsy to me. This is a historic document and an important part of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. While I admit that the 56 article would not suffer enormously if it were gone, it certainly is enhanced by its presence.

Just to clarify I am not saying that if the copyright issue is cleared up that it currently stands as an article or wouldn't be subject to some other speedy criteria or deletion. I was only considering the copyright issue (the source of deletion) without regard to the current content --pgk 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the copyvio--if a Wikipedia editor were to make his/her own translation from the Hungarian original, would the Wiki editor's translation have any copyvio problems? K. Lastochka 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a straight translation, or even a paraphrase, would still violate the coyright. Fan-1967 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of my reasoning? "Do not include copies of primary sources" or the problem that the article title appears to bear no relation to the content? Guy (Help!) 12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Wikipedia is for articles about a thing, never the thing itself. Primary documents go at Wikisource, if they're not copyrighted. In other words, the document, by its proper title, would be discussed in an article, not reiterated. Encyclopedias are discursive. Geogre 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - The article is about an historical event which contains a letter. That letter is uncontroversially in the public domain. It may also belong in Wikisource, but the issue at hand is its inclusion in the Wikipedia. The salient question is whether or not a translation of that public domain text retains public domain status. If so, then the article should be undeleted forthwith. If not, then the article may be at least recreated using a released translation from the original (public domain) source. I think some who have not seen the article in question may incorrectly infer from the above that the article is only the block of text, whereas in reality it is an important historical event, linking to the FA article Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and to István Bibó. In fact, it may be useful to relist the article so that those discussing it may first understand it. István 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Here is the entirety of the discursive element of the article: "István Bibó was the last Minister of the Hungarian National Government remaining at post. Mr. Bibó wrote the following proclamation as he awaited arrest by Soviet troops who were then occupying the Hungarian Parliament building." The lead is 'there was an uprising/revolution in 1956 which the Soviets put down.' That's not exactly a discussion or a contextualizing of the letter. If we can wonder why anyone has read the letter, the article hasn't done much of a job of explaining it. Geogre 11:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete per my nomination. István makes an important point which deserves to be emphasized: this article is not and was never meant to be a stand-alone article, rather an integral part of Hungarian Revolution of 1956. There are several other such "sub-articles" which we created during the editing process, and while they may look irrelevant on their own, they were never meant to be seen on their own, but within the context of the 56 article. Also, I am still unclear about the translation issue: even if the original were not public domain, would a translation by a Wikipedian him/herself be possible to release into public domain? K. Lástocska 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A simple translation would still be a copyvio, as a non-wiki example I can't take the latest Harry Potter in English, translate it to French and start selling it, even if my Translation is different to the official translation (That is a slightly more complicated issue since there are issues concerning copyright of the characters themselves, but the basic principle is there. You can also see Wikipedia:Translation into English, which states "Please note that for copyright reasons, this page is not for requesting translation of sources external to any Wikipedia. The exception to this is if you can also show that the license conditions of the source page would permit its redistribution under the GFDL" --pgk 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarification...K. Lástocska 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the original (Hungarian version) is public domain? Shouldnt it work the same way as well? István 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well immediately following the part I quoted above "e.g. if the page is public domain or itself GFDL-ed, " --pgk 21:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think, but I'm beginning to distrust Logic itself....ugh. K. Lástocska 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gear4music

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gear4music.com

Changed article radically so it is factual only but cannot remember exactly how as it was deleted without comments about the changes, edited article format read similar to info about dolphin music in wikipedia. Thanks Sushmasspace 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion 80% is copy-and-paste identical (other than the center align), the rest is actually less encyclopedic than the first article. The AfD and .com article wasn't listed until now, so I'm relisting this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD - nothing to see, move along. - Mailer Diablo 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid AfD and clsoure.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The request is for the recreated article Gear4music. Repost or rewrite? My opinion is above, just to clarify what the request is about. ~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anax Imperator (band)

Anax Imperator's page shouldn't have been deleted, as the band conforms to WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" pt. 5 and 7. The band is listed with half a page in the norwegian pop & rock encyclopedia, and was a major contributor to the industrial & goth scene in Norway.

Endorse deletion, will change to relist if you provide a source for this half a page. Relist, I just wanted to be sure the encyclopedia was not a hoax. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Norsk pop- og rockleksikon The norwegian encyclopedia of rock and pop music, ISBN 82-92489-09-6. Anax Imperator is reviewed on pages 22-23. The entry has also been made available online. -- Hba 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The above-mentioned source seems reliable and was not considered in the AfD, and the debate seems closer to a no-consensus than a clear delete, to me. (Note: I read the "comment" as supporting a keep.) I feel a relisting to generate further consensus might be more productive in this case than simply rewriting the article with the new source in place (possibly triggering a new AfD). Shimeru 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the strength of arguments (or lack thereof), rather than just head counting, I thought it was a pretty clear delete at the time. --W.marsh 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that you'd made an error in process. To clarify, I agree with your assessment while no sources were put forth, but I feel the source mentioned above (which was not in evidence at the time of the AfD) changes, in retrospect, the weight of the comments. Shimeru 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, sound arguments for deletion (obscure, self-published, reportedly abysmal, short-lived, no reliable sources, clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC) not refuted. WP:ILIKEIT seemed to be about it for the keeps. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, obscure and likely not RS sources. Doesn't explain why band is notable - it has a list of CDs but nothing as to the success or new ideas presented. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term "RS sources", but I guess it could mean "reputable source"? The encyclopedia in question is a fairly definite and acclaimed source in Norway. -- 195.159.86.22 08:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, without prejudice to a new article when enough information is available. Finally, for the anon wondering, RS. Chris talk back 08:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- GramArt, the Recording Artists' Association in Norway, calls the encyclopedia "an unique encyclopedia of norwegian popular music over the last 100 years" (link). -- Hba 19:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ozarks Herbalist

I deprodded this, someone speedied it anyway. I think it's a notable topic worthy of inclusion, and there was a nice start to an article there. Un focused 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regretted overturn and list on AfD. It really, really, should be deleted, but a speedy was inappropriate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid speedy. Naconkantari 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regretted overturn and list on AfD per Amarkov. Was speedy-tagged, detagged and prodded, deprodded and source-tagged, re-speedy-tagged and speedily deleted (by different editors) all in the course of one day. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn May or may not pass AfD, but there certainly was enough notability in the article at time of deletion that it shouldn't have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A disputed prod should go to AfD, not be speedied. Shimeru 21:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article just said "<expletive>" and someone not knowing better put a prod which the creator then removed are you seriously suggesting we'd have to go through and AFD for it? Wikipedia isn't a burecracy, if it meets the speedy criteria then it's not an issue, in this case there are other reasons if shouldn't have been speedied --pgk 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Should have gone to AfD. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - has some books and newspaper columns. We need to examine whether these publications are notable enough. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disgusted overturn and list on AfD, per Amarkov. Out of process deletions are not allowable. If you're going to kill it , at least kill it clean. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 17:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
relist per above, deserves a proper afd discussion.--mathewguiver 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AFD appears to assert notability even if that isn't backed by sources etc. generally if contentious these should be AFD'd instead. --pgk 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 *'''relist''' per above, deserves a proper afd discussion.--[[user:mathewguiver|mathewguiver]] 19:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn and AFD''' appears to assert notability even if that isn't backed by sources etc. generally if contentious these should be AFD'd instead. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Chicken and Rice]]====
-:{{la|Chicken and Rice}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken and Rice|AfD]])
-'''Overturn''' because of the following reasons
-Inconsistence in article version put for deletion and the revised version which removed a large deal of POV and OR.
-Here is the new version:
-*[[User:Valoem/deletion review hopefuls/Chicken and Rice (new)]]
-Here is the old version:
-*[[User:Valoem/deletion review hopefuls/Chicken and Rice (old)]]
-The article was deleted under [[WP:OR]], however note that all POV references have been removed also, I cited an additional 7 sources establishing notability thereby removing WP:OR.
-Here was the bulk of my argument from before:
-***1. Chicken and Rice is an integral part of student life at [[New York University]]. It is a major hot spot for food among NYU students. [http://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/11/02/45499fc3d45d0]
-***2. The stabbing involved was directly related to the food served by the vendor. The lines can grow so long that a person stab another person for "cutting in line". Name me another food stand that can do this. [http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/466625p-392516c.html]
-***3. Chicken and Rice has won a notable award from a public service of New York City. It is has been cited as ''"uniting the Muslim community from the tri-state area and beyond in their search for halal food"'' [http://streetvendor.netfirms.com/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20051021224336800]
-***4. As both a Wikipedia editor with a good history and a customer of Chicken and Rice, I can be a primary source to this event. All of the information on the page is true minus the POV comments. The food itself is amazing and is more notable than even the [[Grease Trucks]] and can generate unbelievable lines. [http://www.gridskipper.com/travel/new-york/best-street-food-53rd-and-6th-avenue-206492.php] I live in [[Princeton, New Jersey]] and have travelled countless times to NYC just for a platter. Many of my peers have done the same. I have cited all the claims.
-Other issues:
-*1. There are also several issues within the AfD that lead me to believe that this article was unfairly prosecuted. Firstly, I was accused of votestacking. This is hardly the case. I asked for neutral opinions from editors (except Easyas12c who was discounted quickly because there was no argument). [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] stated that I was votestacking by bring up this second example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Everyking#Can_I_get_your_opinion_in_the_AfD_for_Chicken_and_Rice.3F]. This is a clear example of asking for another's opinion and is no different from this:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valoem#Hallo_Berlin].
-*2. There was one vote from a new user: [[User:Simpleerob]], that user mentioned a fair point and was not stacking. Jaranda clearly stated that his vote was discounted. According to WP don't bite the newb his or her argument should be included as well. The second user who's vote might also have been discounted was Killerhun00. He is not a new user, but Jaranda mention in the former AfD that "some of the very new users" were there and he seems to be the least experienced user other than Simpleerob.
-*3. Based off the arguments in the AfD the article should have at least been no consenus. A simliar notable food cart [[Hallo Berlin]] survived the AfD here: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallo Berlin]]. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. You did not ask for neutral opinions, you told people "I am looking for ''inclusionist opinions'' on this AfD, for an article that ''should not be deleted''." Asking for neutral opinions is "Hey, could you weigh in on this?" While it's very nice that they do good things, that does not mean they are notable enough for an article. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Oh, and your revised version still has major POV problems, and a few OR problems. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 17:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' that was one person and that person left no opinion, however many unstacked votes were also excluded. That is why this is put for deletion review. Also since Wikipedia is not a vote it revolves around arguments. View the article's debate. Chicken and Rice has established notability and the reason for deletion as OR as been disproved. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-**No it hasn't been. You still have OR and POV problems. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-** Ok I found 2 more POV sentences and cleared them there should be none now. I would also like to note that notability was already established in the AfD. The reason for deletion was OR so notability is not a question.[[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-***What are you talking about? Notability was not established in the AfD. I don't see ANY delete votes that don't say or imply "This is non-notable". -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*''"Reads like an ad. Half the article cannot be verified using reliable sources and the article uses weasel words galore to verify it self. '''Delete''' per [[WP:NOR]]"'' that was the reason for nomination not lack of notability. The sources I have added also cites the claims of notability. Also [[Hallo Berlin]] had passed the AfD and many similar arguments were mentioned including things of the same source. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Hallo Berlin WON an award. This place ranked fourth. Big difference there. And the nomination reason is not necessarily the only reason why it was deleted. By the way, notability is not just sources. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Out of some hundred thousand carts only 4 can be finalist. The food they serve is unique per citations also the article involving the stabbing states that it was directly cause by the food. Other citations also claim that the stand has a much larger following then Hallo Berlin. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  Even with if the "votestacking" votes were to be counted, the arguments to delete outweigh the arguments to keep, IMHO.  Although the we're only supposed to consider here if the closure was improper, or if new evidence has been submitted to that would effect the decision, in fact, I agree with the closer's decision.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*:'''Comment''' new evidence has been established therefore many of the vote deletes were in regard to the old article not the new one. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*::'''Comment'''.  I don't see a significant difference in regard the '''delete''' !votes.  The arguments still seem appropriate.  &mdash; [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] |  [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*:::'''Comment''' I believe you are refering to WP:OR and POV, I believe I removed both if you could please cite where those things remain I would be more than happy to remove it. If you look at the differences between the old version and new version you probably will notice considerable cleaning. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Neutral''' I am the initial nominator of the AfD in question. Hence I am officially being neutral here. First let me make it clear that I still stand behind my nomination. I am not withdrawing it. However, there are things more important to me than being right and there are things more important to me than having one article deleted. What happened was that I was going through the articles tagged as original research because that backlog needs to cleaned up. When I first discovered this article it was in a miserable condition. It had not been worked on and read like an ad. Also most of the article was not verifiable at the time. Therefor it was heavily tagged and a clear cut candidate for deletion. I am not going to go into the whole mess surrounding the debate. It got bad and has been resolved. However, having looked through the related AfD's and considering that the verdict was based largely if not entirely on my original arguments for deletion I do believe that new evidence in the shape of the revised and sourced article has emerged. As I said, I stand by my nomination also regarding the revised version but what is more important to me is that decisions are being made consistently and not based on who put in the most effort in one specific AfD. Therefor I support the nominator's wish for a second review of this article keeping in mind the work that has been put into cleaning the article and the fact that related articles have not been deleted. AfD is not a flawless process and neither are editors especially in heated situations. I could get into a long talk about opinions on AfD as a process but I will refrain from that here since this isn't a debate about AfD in general. I hope you will take these points into consideration when you make your decisions. Integrity and consistency in the decisions being made is more important to me than being right. [[User:MartinDK|MartinDK]] 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' can't see that this addresses the concerns of the original AFD, still seems to read like advertising copy or a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article.  --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Undelete''', no consensus. This was a well-written, referenced article that asserted notability. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' per Amarkov, Arthur Rubin and Pgk. Not only was the AfD handled properly, but the new arguments here don't even make sense. (A bunch of food carts on 53rd and 6th are an "integral part of student life" at a university fifty blocks south? I don't think so.) The votestacking seals the deal; keep deleted and salt if necessary. --[[User:Aaron|Aaron]] 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''' - The AfD followed procedure and was closed properly; nothing else is relevant here. --[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc  Tropics]] <sup>[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Message in a bottle]]</sup> 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' Just wondering where the idea that the Urban Justice Center (arranger of the Vendy awards) is a "public service" of NYC comes from. It's a private, non-governmental charity and advocacy group. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22urban+justice+center%22+%22non-governmental%22&btnG=Search&hs=Xyu&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial] . I was named as an issue in the nom so I'll abstain from stating a preference here. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 22:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  A ''food cart''?  You are joking, aren't you? Or is the guy running it [[Jamie Oliver]]? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::Tell me about it (see [[Hallo Berlin]] afd). Mind you, I think [[Jamie Oliver]] would want to shut the foodcart down and force everyone to eat organic salads instead or something [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' I would like to point out once again the AfD for [[Hallo Berlin]]. That cart has equal notability and was kept. Secondly this is not the AfD. We should evalulate the article in its current form in a new AfD, therefore we should at least considered a '''Relist'''. Even the nominator himself suggested that previous AfD may not have justly view the article in its current state. Finally since some people are turning this into an AfD I have a few comment regarding the article itself. ''"A food cart?  You are joking, aren't you?"'' how does that argument hold any ground. Per Simpleerob, anything can hold notability a food cart that has established it is no different from a person who has established it. I was not the person who created the article. This article was also under heavy editing when it was up. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::Um, no, the "minimum" is "Endorse deletion" otherwise every single article submitted to DRV would be at least relisted at AFD, so all afd'd articles would be submitted to AFD repeatedly, leading to general ''argumentum ad nauseam'' and the collapse of society. I notice that a single purpose account editor has added new text to the article. This is out of process and is eligible for a new afd, if that's what you mean. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-::::Oh no, I am well aware of that, I was merely suggesting that in order to reevalute this article which it deserves we should at least consider a '''Relist''', I reworded it so it is less confusing. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' - notability not established.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]'''  ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  Notability was not established, valid close.  No new information to merit another AfD.  I am vaguely tempted to {{tl|db-repost}} the recreation.  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new talk back]</small> 10:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion/Delete (since it has been recreated)''':  I've been at 53rd and 6th.  I've been at 50th and 7th.  I've been at 86th and Lex.  I've been at 96th and Madison.  NYU is down at 12th.  Hunter is up at 60th but on the east side, so they'd have to cross the park to get to this "famous" place.  Carts are carts, and Vendy awards are local NYC awards.  Even with its being New York City, local awards of a subsegment of retail are so utterly insignificant to the wider world that there is no claim here of notability.  Furthermore, the recreation without DRV suggests that advertising has been the motive all along.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' I'm not sure what you mean when you say recreation without deletion review, I put the tag on the article as you are suppose to. Are you talking about the edit done by Bundis? Because that person has nothing to do with me.[[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 14:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-**The article was recreated after the AfD.  What's supposed to happen after deletion is you come to DRv and argue for getting the article back.  What ''appears to have'' happened is you've put the article back anyway regardless, meaning it actually has a tag saying it was kept by AfD and should be deleted, which I'm sure is the opposite of what you want.  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new talk back]</small> 14:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Oh I see, I had no idea, I was under the impression that we were suppose to tag it regardless. You can view my edit history as I assure you I have no intentions of advertising this article. My apologies. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-**I'm sorry for any allegation of misbehavior in any one editor, but I believed that the article itself advertises the vendor.  I could have sworn it went from red to blue while on DRV.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 15:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-**I'm not sure how it is an advert I tried my best to remove all POV statements is there anything else I can do? Also should I <nowiki>{{db-repost}}</nowiki> myself? Or is the tag ok right now per [[User:Pgk|Pgk]]? [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 16:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-**: Personally I can't see an issue with the page being there with the tag saying it is under review, however I am a bit more concerned about the two brand new accounts which have turned up to add a stub "advert" as text. I've removed that and semi-protected the article since (a) It does suggest some motivation in purely advertising (b) It suggests the article under review is the stub being created, whereas the article itself is more substantial and if it fails or succeeds it should be on that basis. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Wikipedia is the last place anybody would advertise. I perosnally am not associated with the 53rd and 6th cart in anyway and I was the one who put up the orginal research tags as well as the pov tags in the first place. Those of you assuming that my motive was advertising need to stop. You all are just making wrong assumptions. I thought the article was in horrible shape and needed to be fixed up because a lot of it was junk. But the place is noteworthy. Wikipedia has 1,000 of dumb articles. They have articles on high schools. They have articles on streets, they have articles on strip malls. They even have articles on food vendors like this one [[Grease Trucks]], which are food carts located near rutgers in New Jersey. Almost every high school in the United States has its own article on wikipedia. A particular high school means nothing to people outside of the district it serves. The Vendy awards in a city of 8.5 million residents recongnizes this place as a land mark. And 53rd and 6t hdoes not need advertising. The place serves over 50,000 platters a week. It is well known through out NYC, Long Island, New Jersey, Upstate New York and Philadelphia. These are no small metro areas, this area has a combined population of over 30 million. You might as well delete the article on [[Six Flags Great Adventure]] since that can also be considered advertising with your guidelines. Six flags great adventure means nothing to people who live outside of the NY-NJ and PA area. [[User:Bundis|Bundis]] 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*: We get 100s of people posting rather obvious ads and self promotion pieces every day/ Your only apparent edits are apparently to this article (even if you did add some of the tags), which does strongly suggest you have a particular interest in this particular cart. Restoring your version whilst this DRV is ongoing is not the right thing to do, you cannot just declare that you know best and stuff everyone else, wait for the DRV to run its course if you've a good argument state it.  the fact that we have other material which maybe equally poor elsewhere on wikipedia is not a good argument, we don't set precedents like that. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 08:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Note:''' The "Brian Lehrer Show" will reveal the Vendy Award winners today (10 AM, EDT US) (online radio at www.wnyc.org), which will do something to eliminate or confirm the one claim to notability in the article.  My view, stated above, is that the award is local and therefore should not represent a claim, even if the cart wins.  If it does not, then that claim will be removed.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-** ^^^ If you havent noticed, NYC is a very big city. Local in New York means your block. Maybe local in your city means the entire city because it is very small. But NYC is a city of more than 8 million people. There are more than 3,000 food vendors on the streets. This place is well known on the streets of NYC, as stated in this article http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/466625p-392516c.html: ''The family of New Jersey college student fatally stabbed over a line-cutting argument at a '''popular midtown''' falafel stand grieved yesterday as it struggled to make sense of the tragedy.'' Being considered popular in midtown is a big deal. Maybe you people dont know cause your not from New York. [[User:MoNeY TaLKs To ThE EsSenCe|MoNeY TaLKs To ThE EsSenCe]] 14:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' Nothing has changed my mind since the AfD. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] 13:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Further note on the "Vendy" Award''':  The cart was ''not'' one of the 2006 finalists, according to [http://streetvendor.org/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20051004213526141 the official awards site], so no one needs to even tune in to Lehrer, unless she or he wishes to do so.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 13:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Response''' Yes it is not, because it was the 2005 finalist [http://streetvendor.netfirms.com/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20051021224336800 2005 finalists]. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' - even the new version reads like a travel guide, and the notability seems questionable at best. And to the person who said that WP is the last place you would advertise - have you any idea how many ads I've tagged for speedy deletion while on Newpage patrol? A lot. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' The place is indeed noteworthy in the North East. People tevel there all the way from Philadelphia, located 2 hours away. The only thing I would recommend is maybe find the history on the cart and how it became so popular. And find out how the cart started. It maybe hard to see a food vendor be legendary since it is not a resturaunt. But this is New York we are talking about. This as an only in New York scenario. [[User:165.230.74.174|165.230.74.174]] 15:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-* So it this article overturned? Then put it back up. [[User:Bundis|Bundis]] 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Not while the article is incorrectly titled, and the sources listed are a mixture of ad links, "man bites dog", what appears to be the cart's own site (which has another title again), and references to a fight that just happened to occur there.  Endorse deletion, with lethal dose of salt.  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new talk back]</small> 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)