Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:43, 4 December 2006

< November 27	November 29 >

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

28 November 2006

Dark Army

This page had good information and I think the page was deleted to hastely. Thanks. SephirothYuyX 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, valid A7, no assertion of notability. Article can be recreated if notability can be asserted with reference to independent reliable sources, but given the sentence "Dark Army is still active playing rarely at bars keeping a low front in the music industry" I really doubt that that's possible. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. Endorse. Chris cheese whine 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - yeah, when the article goes out of it's way to assert that it's not notable, you can't really expect it to be kept. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 14:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the speedy-deletion, this was decided at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dark Army. Endorse closure. No evidence that the situation has changed from the time of the last discussion. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No assertion of notability. Dionyseus 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet

I have speciefied my reasons here ([1]) During the AFD, the authors of the article were AFAIK not notified, and the article was deleted based on an uncritical reading of WP:BIO. Notablity for astrologers or religious leaders like PNB is not easy to establish. WP:BIO says even in the introduction: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." PNB is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or religious leaders, where I think she is notable, on grounds of her published books and writings, and her role as a religious leader. A. G. E. Blake for example in The Intelligent Enneagram says: "An important and useful text, which makes reference to the enneagram in this context, is The Gnostic Circle, by Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet." She was also criticized by authors unrelated to her or to her group like Rajaram: [2] And Jenkins has also written about her: The author Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet, and her book The Gnostic Circle (published in 1978) has also been a keystone piece of information which allowed Jenkins to futher confirm aspects of the galactic center as written into ancient Vedic philosophies. Jenkins states that The Gnostic Circle is "a deep, intuitive, and complex work." The book, according to Jenkins, contains an almost matter-of-fact description of the evolutionary implications of our periodic alignments with the Galactic Center.[3] There are probably many other references to her or to her followers, including criticisms by Aurobindo groups. (And I'm not at all an expert on Patricia or even on Astrology, but have still heard about her.) Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. The deletion of this article was incidentally even noteworthy enough to be mentioned on kheper.net. --Mallarme 17:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Mallarme 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: notifying the creator of an article of an AfD is common courtesy, but not doing so does not invalidate the AfD. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the AfD link above to the actual one, which also links to various other related AfD's. I don't see anything above that would convince me to change my call, but I abstain since I closed it. (Yay! First contested AfD closure!) ~ trialsanderrors 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). I can find no process problems with the deletion discussion. The core problem with the article was the lack of independent, reliable sources on which to base the article or to demonstrate notability. None of the new sources cited above reliably address that concern. Rossami (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closer. None of the new sources mentioned above appear at first glance to be sources that are both independent and reliable. GRBerry 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion AFD and closure was within policy. Sarah Ewart 07:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion I believe I created the Patizia Norelli-Bachelet page, or at least I added much of its content. I was not alerted to its fate (or to the fate of the other articles I created related to her yoga, books, community), and therefore was not allowed any time to present more facts, links that would justify the PNB page and the ones related to it. I think everybody jumped the gun on this one. Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet should be counted as a notable figure and author whether one regards her work/claims highly or not. How many people have claimed to be the third element of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's Supramental Descent/Yoga? None, other than her. This claim, by itself makes at least a bio page for her justified. How many other disciples/writers on the subject of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, such as Satprem, are allowed wiki pages about themselves and their organizations. Many. None of that is considered 'vanity spaming'. Norelli-Bachelets's work on the Matrimandir is also truely noteworthy and is historically relevant, even if it is not the majority opinion ( http://matacom.com/chr1/ChronicleOne_1.html). Hasn't it been the case a few times in human history, where majority opinion does not necessariy represent the full truth of a situation? I hope other neutral editors can review the many knee jerk reactions to the PNB related content and explore more facts about Ms. Norelli-Bachelet's actual relevance in world-affairs. Here is a review of one of her books by a Kashmiri Pundit, Dalip Langoo: http://www.milchar.com/Apr2004/14.html - sablerlotus (3 Dec 2006)
- So, wait, now, someone's CLAIMS alone make them notable? Also, not notifying the author does not invalidate the AfD, since ANYONE should be able to find the information. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Ridge Mall

Why was this article deleted? It did not meet any criteria for a speedy deletion. I've also noticed that you seem to have a habit of deleting entries related to shopping malls.160.147.240.6 21:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See other threads below. This was a directory entry on a mall operated by General Growth Properties, one of a number edited by Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is clearly associated with that company. It was advertorial in tone, unsourced except for the mall's own website, and offered nothing by way of evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: It was a Yellow Pages listing, effectively, with no assertion that the subject was encyclopedic. At the same time, a mass AfD or AfD on this one or an RFC on land developments would be nice. We have had several objects like housing subdivisions, apartment complexes, malls, etc., and it would be wonderful if we had a guideline to point at to make the criteria clear. Geogre 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I completely agree. This was never intended to set any knid of precedent, I was just working through a spam campaign by Dvac (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Guy (Help!) 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Van Corteza

Objections to speedy deletions are not grounds for immediate referral to AfD. This is a special case. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vectrex_3dimager.jpg

Deleted by User:Betacommand as part of a reckless purge of about 1500 images tagged as replaceable fair-use. This image, and many others were tagged with {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, but the admin seems to have spent about 5 seconds per image and did not consider any fair-use rationale. See also Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Massive_Image_Deletion. Requesting Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Dgies 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was subsequently redeleted by a different admin, but as an observation the image was tagged {{promophoto}} which has a very specific meaning and is frequently misused, I can't tell if that were the case in this instance since it had no source, so I can't check if the source was indeed a press pack releasing the image for publicity purposes. The image could also have been deleted for no source in due course... --pgk 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it was re-restored, it seems. I have deleted it because it has been tagged {{replaceable fair use}} for over 7 days, and no convincing argument was given why it would be impossible to photograph this item. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE

Two thirds of the users voted to merge or keep the page. I cannot see why the adminstrator concerned went ahead and deleted it when only one third of the users had voted to delete it. Dutugemunu 07:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted. Another user redirected it to the wrong article. I've fixed the redirect, so this can be speedily closed. --Core desat 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Core, it was deleted. The page deleted at AFD (rife with sockpuppetry trying to keep their nice propaganda) was Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE (note the "the" and the capital "A"). Multiple pages were created. This is a fork of that page, that instead of being a list of 135 dates with an external link for each one is just 60 or so of them. Proto::type 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity - variants of the deleted page were:

Terrorist attacks carried out by LTTE

Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE

Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Notable attacks by the LTTE

Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE

I've deleted all of them, via the above mentioned AFD. As this AFD closure will probably be reviewed, because it's a politicised issue, note that the AFD had 5 deletes, 5 keeps (4 disregarded as being blatant socks). The deletes were decent. The 5 keeps didn't even try and use Wikipedia policy to show why the article should be deleted, instead embarking on personal attacks on those voting 'delete' (and everyone's favourite "bad faith on part of nom"), and at least 1 is a known sockpupetteer, and the others only contribute to this and similar articles (usually getting warned about POV on a near-daily basis). Proto::type 10:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the deletes were decent ?? proto, two of them were caught for sockpuppeting and you call them decent ??!! And 5 keeps didn't try to use wiki policy ?? Did you even bother to read our comments ?? This article had nearly 200 references, and satisfied every wiki policy.But did you read what the deletion side said ?? For me it was nothing more than a logical fallacy.What they say is "since some sources come from the GOSL this cant be true"!! ,inst this a WP:POV ? And you, without giving a valid reason,had deleted every thing ! even the ones which had non-government sources !! why ??--Iwazaki 17:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

Comment. As for the Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE page , I saw only one user making personal attacks on the others. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. If I remember there were 4 merge votes, 5 deletes and 5 keeps. So the deletes were in the minority anyhow Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Proto , you have used the word propaganda to describe the page. Do you mean the page is composed of lies Dutugemunu 11:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: This article does not aim to preserve NPOV or simply anything at all. All the incidents it actually had were only some 100 odd external links and just date, time and external link. This is completely POV and is based on a no of Govt. of Sri Lanka citations, when it is one of the parties involved in this racial conflict. This is like looking up the Sudanese archives to write in an NPOV fashion against the Darfur crisis. This article conforms to advertising the govt of Sri Lanka as a noble, humanitarian agency when it has thousands of gross human rights violation cases against it, and this article is only being used to establish GoSL's supremacy by defaming the other party involved in the conflict. My final opinion, as an editor, who conforms to WP:5P would be to delete this article to bring back NPOV to the coverage of Sri Lanka in Wikipedia, as well as this specific article. Proto, my thanks to you for taking into account the credibility of the actual votes - sockpuppets, anon IPs and everything. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: The article that was deleted broke every rule in wikipedia, including WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. It survived this long due to revert warring and move warring by a determined few sri lankan government supporting POV warriors. Elalan 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

Trinncomanb did the honorable thing and recused himself of his votes until the case is settled. Calling myself or Trincomanb or sockpuppet is a blatant contravention of WP:AGF. Elalan 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But two thirds voted either to merge the page or keep it. The deletes were in the minority. Are you saying all the merge and keep votes are sockpuppets. If I remember correctly at least 2 of the delete votes were accused of sockpuppeting. I dont think we shoudl delete pages simply because someone posts an AFD Dutugemunu 10:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently untrue - I'm saying most of the 'keep' votes were either sockpuppetry or of dubious worth. There were, in total, 9 keep votes, of which 4 were definitely discounted, and 2 more were from sockpuppeteers or POV warriors. So you could say that three quarters voted to either delete the page or merge it. And as there was nothing other than external links to merge, the difference between merge and delete was minimal. Proto::type 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For details of sockpuppets by users who voted to delete in the AFD see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Elalan

The users who voted for merge asked for the Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to be merged with Notable attacks by the LTTE. Since you deleted both pages , you have actually gone against the merge and the keep votes combined. Certainly the merge voters didnt expect this page and the page they voted to merge it with ,both to be deleted. They expected the information to be merged , not to be entirely deleted. I would dispute the clain that these are no more than external links. Many Wikipedia users spent their time on creating these pages. Its not fair to just dismiss the work they have put into it. If content is lacking , you can wait for other users to add to it, not just delete the entire information Dutugemunu 13:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn--Iwazaki 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) proto, you had made a few errors in judgement and counting. First, please go through the AFD again. Read all the points made by ME,iwazaki and others who voted to keep this. And please show me ,which is POV ?? And then go through those who voted to delete it(ONLY 4), and see The real POV .I think this may will be the most "biased" decision ever taken in wikipedia. The article is WP:NPOV WP:RS,And i have several times asked those who opposed this to single out any "unreliable incident" or "incidents which they think did not carry out by the LTTE",and didn't get a single reply. Also in the process I gave a link ,which clearly shows That the LTTE has carried out over 150 suicide missions during 1980-2000 !Surprisingly you have not seen any of this !! And for a little tirade directed at me, Please read the AFD and realise who started the "Personal Attacks" on the first place.finally, there were 9 keeps and 3 merges, only 4 deletes..None of those who stand for deletions made any "logical argument at all"!! if you have any problem with the citations, though we have given nearly 200 of it, I believe I'm now in a position to give you extra sources too.All the incidents in the article, did occur and did carried out by the LTTE. And none of the source is disputed.so I request you to reconsider your decision. --Iwazaki 16:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you are quite certain that,most of the keep votes are sockpuppets , so could you please elaborate who are those users ? While using this as one of the excuses to delete this article, you have failed to realize that the only people found for sockpuppeting were the ones who voted "To delete" this. !!--Iwazaki 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Iwazaki, even if nothing's proved, the fact is that all the keep votes were by people so intimately connected to the issue (not that some of the deletes weren't as well), that they were all emotional keeps, not reasoned ones. The comments you made all through the AfD, including links to graphic images of dead or injured Sinhalese just goes to show how much this is an emotional issue for you. Now, you keep saying we haven't shown which claims are not true, and you think this shows that those for delete are the ones who aren't making reasoned votes, but the fact of the matter really is, no matter how hard you deny it, that a letter written by the Government of Sri Lanka is not a neutral source. Proto has also noted above that there's really nothing reliable to merge to the other article, so the merge votes have to be considered some kind of weak delete. Think of the delete as having been a merge--all mergable material was merged. This article clearly should have been deleted. It goes against WP:RS, WP:POV, and probably half a dozen other Wikipedia policies. The problem is that AfD is a very bad place for such a decision to be made, since it invites decisions to be made on the basis of who can scream louder; Tamils or Sinhalese. Proto made the right decision. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't it patronizing to say that the people who voted for merge didnt know the difference between a merge and a delete Dutugemunu 20:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, Government of Sri Lanka is not the only source. There are many references from different sources for these articles. For the incidents sourced from Gov. Sri anka do you deny these incidents happened. The US listed the casualties from September 11. According to your logic, these people didnt die but the US is making them up because it is the victim of these attacks. I suppose you are waiting for Al Quada and US to jointly agree on what happened. Please dont confuse the functions of a democratically elected government. Any comparisons with Sudan are not acceptable because Sudan is not a democracy and it is regarded as an international pariah state while Sri Lanka is a democracy and a legitimate member of the international community . Dutugemunu 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply to Osgoodelawer. You have condemned every "keep vote"as an emotional vote ?? May i kindly asked you why ?? All the keep voters and merge voters gave valid reasons and you call them emotional voters ?? Yu have also stated not all the delete voters were emotional ??!! Yes, since only 2 out of 6 were caught for "sockpuppeting" you mat be technically right.But haven't you noticed who actually voted for the deletion?? , a couple of LTTE sympathizers and of course, you .So all the delete votes were either emotional or biased(I have shown your double standard regarding this issue).Hence according to your logic, shouldn't we ignore the "delete" vote completely ??!!. Actually there were few others flaws in your comment,and for the benefit of all i have listed them below.

1 All the keeps were emotional and NOt all the deletions were emotional

*answer per above

2 iwazaki is emotional because he's giving links to dead people

I was giving evidences !! The photos are of dead people, because they were "massacred" by LTTE.This is nothing about being emotional. This is all about being encyclopedic..I gave the evidences to back up our claims , and you ??? absolutely nothing ! And did you noticed ,there was even a BBC link in the article !! Well, you were hasty in making your decision ,and i supposed you didn't even bother to read that.

3 GOSL article is not neutral

This is the core of your argument.And this comment alone is overwhelmingly WP:POV ..AND a classic"Logical fallacy". People of Sri Lanka are victims here and these are not even combat incidents.These are cold blooded murders of innocent people and any government of the world has right to complain about it.Totally WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Except calling it unreliable, you have done no effort to examine the details written in the letter nor your have questioned any single incident there.Unless you cant find any contradictions in the letter, all your claims would become rather pointles

4 GOSL is unreliable but others aren't

Just because GOSL is engaged in a war against LTTE, we cant dismiss every single claim made by the GOSL.We should take, every case carefully and analyze it thoroughly before making any conclusions.This is how a encyclopedia works !! Encyclopedia is not a place where you can have a worst case "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque". If i use your logic or i would say fallacy, then i or anyone can dismiss almost everything !! There wont be a wikipedia anymore !!

5 merges are weak delete votes

This is a hypothetical assumption !! I just went through it, and none of them said any thing like that all !! Even one merger said, "The incidents I checked seem to have a reliable source" . So the mergers were in fact weak keeps .And you seemed to,once again, engaged in a mysterious logic.i don't know what do you mean by "scream loudly".were you referring tothis. An excellent example of wasting server space for "cheap political attacks on a democratic nation" .

And finally, i request all the relevant administrators to revert this decision as it is not only flawed but also self-contradictory. Please bear in mind that no one has ever questioned any of the stated incidents.So there is no question that these incidents did occur and LTTE had a hand on it.Hence the decision to delete is flawed !thank you--Iwazaki 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of your inability to understand Wikipedia policy and proper logic (your pretty Latin doesn't get you anywhere). The article is clearly unencyclopedic for so many different reasons. Even if all the votes were for keep, it still had to be deleted. An RfC that included only those well-versed in Wikipedia policy and who weren't emotionally connected to the topic on either side would clearly have found for deletion. Does that mean I think other pro-LTTE articles should not also be deleted? Absolutely not. Both the GoSL and the LTTE (and its sympathizers) are both unreliable sources--whether I give you examples or not aside. Some sources clearly are too close to the issue to be trusted. I understand you do not believe this and think every statement from the GoSL is reliable until proved not. You, however, are wrong. And that's simply that. But I have other things to deal with on Wikipedia. I'm not a one-issue man like you, and so I bow out of this discussion. Wikipedia policies will prevail regardless of whether we continue to argue the same points over and over. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost all people who voted for deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government." - not true. "all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc" - also untrue. Proto::type 13:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said "almost all the incidents are sourced from Amnesty, BBC, CNN etc". I meant sources other than the Sri lankan government were mainly used for Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I remember that at least 3 (possibly 4) of the users who voted for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE did so on the grounds that many incidents are sourced from the Sri Lankan government. So the votes for the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTEcannot be used to delete Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because their justifcation for deletion does not apply to Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If you restore the AFD I can give you and exact count of those who wanted to merge and those who wanted to delete and why tehy wanted to delete. Dutugemunu 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The two reasons given for deletion by the closing admin are both incorrect. 1st he states, that there was a consensus for deletion, which is not true considering the final votes were Delete 5 (disregarding the nominator, who himself was a sockpuppet), Keep 9 and Merge 3. I don't see a consensus there, even if the votes of Melissahutchison (talk · contribs) and LovesEverybody (talk · contribs) who have only voted on AFDs are disregarded. Considering the merge vote also as votes to delete is, as far as I know, not suggested anywhere in Wikipedia policy. 2nd he states his main reason for deletion was that the article was a "collection of external links". That is absolutely not correct. The only external links in the article were the citations. I believe he made a grave error there.

Also note the editor who nominated this article for deletion Elalan, is actually a himself a proven sockpuppet of User:Trincomanb who also voted for deletion, and Elalan has subsequently been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for "abusive sock-puppetry". No other editor who voted on this AFD has been proven as a sockpuppet or even had a case started against them. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 :And it was re-restored, it seems. I have deleted it because it has been tagged {{tl|replaceable fair use}} for over 7 days, and no convincing argument was given why it would be impossible to photograph this item. &ndash; [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[Special:Random|random]])</sup> 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Fairmont Preparatory Academy]]====
-:{{la|Fairmont Preparatory Academy}}{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairmont Preparatory Academy| — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairmont Preparatory Academy|AfD]])|}}
-After the AfD had started, an explicit and sourced claim of notability was made based on recognition by the [[Blue Ribbon Schools Program]] awarded by the [[United States Department of Education]], considered to be the highest honor that an American school can achieve. This claim was backed up with relevant, reliable sources from the United States Department of Education, provided to document the school's receipt of this award. We are approaching a strong consensus at both [[WP:SCHOOL]] and [[WP:SCHOOLS3]] that receipt of a national recognition such as by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program constitutes evidence of notability. I must also question the one-sided dissection of the intent and reasoning of the votes of those who chose to keep this article, while failing to apply the same standard to other poorly argued votes ("because of, as the title states, being non notable") and several other unsupported and unargued variations of "non notable". Claims of non-notability included a claim that the Blue Ribbon Award is non-notable, a claim that is clearly contradicted at the [[Blue Ribbon Schools Program]] article. While we would all strongly prefer to see all those voting to keep an article demonstrate some more substance regarding their logic, the fact that an arbitrarily high standard of argument was upheld in only one direction, while ignored in the other, is at best inconsistent. There is no clear reasoned consensus for deletion, even with throwing out votes, other than based on ignoring the notability of the award. I strongly urge all those reading to overturn this deletion. Closing administrator was approached before opening this DRV and encouraged its creation. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment as closer''' - I stand by my assessment of the debate; please refer to my closing comments in the AFD. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 13:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse outcome''' The first delete opinion other than than the nomination contained a statement that the article was based on a copyright violation.  Under the GFDL, all subsequent revisions must credit that history, but it is a copyright violation.  That requires deletion by overriding policy.  It also says nothing about recreation of a new article that does not use the history.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-**Further, I see no evidence of abuse of discretion by the closure, and no keep arguments from overriding policy that would require a keep outcome regardless of the outcome of the discussion.  The best keep argument was the claim that it was notable for having won a Blue Ribbon Award.  But nobody actually found any coverage by independent sources for having won the award, which is the acid test when pushed.  [[User:Pan Dan]] explicitly checked both Google and Lexis-Nexis (a far better search tool, but not one that is freely available) and found no coverage that would evidence notability from the Blue Ribbon Award.  So the appropriate evaluation here is that the BRA is, in fact, not an automatic basis for notability.  No notability standard for schools has attained even guideline status, much less policy status, so it is simply impossible to make an argument for keeping from overriding policy based on any criteria that may or may not appear in such a standard if there ever is one.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-::*And what ''policy'' exactly was being overriden here? Please be specific. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 02:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::*As I understand it, the closer was saying that that WP:N, which is a guideline, is based on WP:V, which is a policy -- note that WP:N states that "This requirement [i.e. being the subject of multiple non-trivial outside sources] ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable article about the topic."  [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-::*As a follow-up since you have now changed the rationale for your comments, which are based on the unproven assertion of a user who was arguing to delete the article, I would appreciate your comment on the news coverage of the school's Blue Ribbon award and White House ceremony [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/61297416.html?dids=61297416:61297416&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+23%2C+1991&author=LILY+DIZON&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=3&desc=COUNTYWIDE+2+Schools+Win+a+U.S.+Blue+Ribbon] . This is from the Los Angeles Times, the newspaper of record for the state of California and one of the leading newspapers in the United States. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::*(Sorry to butt in here, since you are asking GRBerry, but) I have to note that you are talking about a 255-word write-up in the ''Orange County [i.e. local] Edition'' of the LA Times.  I don't think that's enough to re-open the debate, as the reason for deletion was that "the school is not the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability."  That is still the case (with "(or any)" removed, but that is ancillary, and if the LA Times article is trivial we can leave "(or any)" in there).  (Comment: the article didn't, and still doesn't, show up on Lexis-Nexis, don't know why.)  [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:::*"from overriding policy" means "from a policy that overrides consensus to do something different", I'm saying there was no argument to keep in the AFD that meets that test.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Closure''' Proto's reasoning is clear and well-articulated - a very good example of AfD being assessed as a discussion not a head count, whcih is why we moved from VfD in the first place. [[User:Eusebeus|Eusebeus]] 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' per GRBerry and Eusebeus. [[User:1ne|1ne]] 16:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' per above. (Note that I did not participate in this AfD discussion.) AfD isn't a headcount, and Berry and Eusebeus bring up excellent points as to why this was a completely valid closure. The closer's statements are clear and concise, and I see no reason to disagree with them (and not just because I'm a so-called "deletionist"). -- [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222]] 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' and undelete.  Multiple sourced claims to notability were made within the article, and I disagree completely with the "rationale" provided by the closing administrator.  [[User:Silensor|Silensor]] 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' notability is proven... the rationale in closing was simply wrong. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">&#x2622;</span> 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' per above.  I don't get it. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Overturn and restore'''. Another misguided close of a non-consensus result that oversteps the bounds of admin discretion. The nominator's entire argument consisted of: ''Non notable school, suggest deletion under WP:SCHOOL''. Without any effort to support the assertion with some type of evidence or reasoning, that is no better than saying "doesn't reach my personal standards". Leaving aside the fact that WP:School is not policy or guideline, I would have to discount that nomination along with the two delete commentators who merely typed "delete per nom" or NN. The keep side argued, in part, that the school merited an article because of winning a US government award. The closer states the award failed WP:V. That was false- it was sourced and verified. Hence, the support for inclusion had foundation that can not be completely discounted by the closer. The closer further misstates policy by claiming the article needs to be: ''subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability.'' I am not aware of any ''policy'' that makes that requirement. It can not be used to justify over-riding a discussion with consensus or lack of consensus. I also find it odd that the closer discounted all the keep comments, but none of the delete comments.  Finally, regarding GRBerry's copyvio point: the standard way of handling this is to move the article to a temporary page and then restore a version w/o the copyvio history. This is explained at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]. Nothing requires deletion in this case. In short, the delete close is not justified and needs to be overturned. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:I read the comment as saying that there was no version without the copyvio history.  In which case there are no legitimate versions to restore.  That isn't clearly asserted in the comment however.  I see no functional difference between restoring zero versions and deleting the page, so nothing here that I really need to evaluate.  But I'll expand on my reason for endorsing to make it clear that I would endorse even if the copyright violation hadn't been mentioned.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 02:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' and restore.  Notability was demonstrated in a verifiable manner, and the deletion was made under shakey pretenses.  [[User:RFerreira|RFerreira]] 01:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*<s>'''weak endorsement'''I initially said keep to the article based on the presence of the Ribbon and then switched to delete when the complete lack of sources discussing the ribbon was made apparent. That said, I'm concerned that this may be getting very close to the limit of admin discretion even though I generally support admin discretion when closing difficult AfDs. However, it is one thing to discount an argument like "all schools are notable" but it is a bit more difficult to discount an explicit claim of notability. Furthermore, one of the keep comments which the closer discounted as making "no sense" was a reference to an earlier version [[WP:SCHOOLS]] (that proposal has almost zero chance of being accepted and that relevant part is one of the most contentious parts to ever be in it, but it wasn't quite nonsense). The final argument against admin discretion in this case is that as a default matter this wasn't really in the no consensus range (normally around 50% to 66% for deletion) but rather in the keep range as a straight voting matter). All of that said, the lack of meeting [[WP:N]] is a policy based issue and the matter therefore seems to be plausibly within admin discretion but barely. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) </s> stuck out analysis still is correct but has been superseed by JJay's point that he has a source. Thus, overturning do to the availibility of new sources, but not commenting strongly in anyway on the close which occured. It might make sense to list it on AfD again with the new source but I wouldn't object to a straight undeletion either. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:* Two points: (i) are you saying that WP:N is policy that justifies deleting or keeping articles regardless of the consensus in an AFD?; (ii) you mention a "complete lack of sources" as the basis for your delete "vote". I can't remember what sources were in the article, but I believe DRV is meant to address not just the close of an article, but also new information that may have come to light since the close, as well as overriding a potentially defective discussion due to lack of information. With that in mind, would you please comment on the LA Times link that I provided above for the coverage of this school's blue ribbon award. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-::* To your first inquiry, admins are allowed a fair bit of discretion when closing AfDs which would otherwise be a no consensus and this was very close to being a no consensus especially when the very weak arguments such as the 50 year comment are weighed in that fashion. I therefore see this on the outskirts of admin discretion but within that discretion. As to your second point- I've modified my opinion based on the presence of a new source. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''overturn and undelete''' The reason for the deletion was proofen to be incorrect, unaffected from this is the claim that another reason for deletion exist. This claim can be made AFTER this deletion was overturned and the article undeleted (which also prevents possible future abuse as wrong reference or example). After that will the article follow the established rules and regulations of wikipedia again as every other article in the system. --[[User:Cumbrowski|'''roy''']]&lt;sac&gt; [[User talk:Cumbrowski|<font color="red"><b><sup>Talk!</sup></b></font>]] .oOo. 03:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure'''.  [[User:Chriscf/AfD evaluation|Scores]] work out to 3-1½ points in favour of deletion, securing the case, with a default delete because of the copyright and [[WP:V]] concerns.  This debate was one of my [[User:Chriscf/AfD evaluation/Examples|examples]] for demonstrating the evaluation method. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-:This is without prejudice to a new article, free of copyright concerns, and [[WP:RS|properly sourced]]. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-::Since the blue ribbon award was sourced in the article to a US government document there were no WP:V concerns. The copyright concern is also a red herring and is based on a misunderstanding of practice. The inputs in your "evaluation method" were flawed. The results are, at best, personal opinion, but fall way short of any type of effective policy discounting model. Your initial comment implying an official score, "case" or default result is highly deceptive--[[User:JJay|JJay]] 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' despite [[User:JJay]]'s LA Times source.  The article was deleted because "the school is not the primary subject of multiple (or any) non-trivial sources that show notability."  That is still the case (with "(or any)" removed, but obviously that is ancillary, and if the LA Times article is trivial we can leave "(or any)" in there).  Sources were sought, with no results, in the AfD.  There is no reason to re-open the debate on the basis of a single 255-word write-up in a local paper (note it's the "''Orange County Edition''").  Find more sources, and I will probably change my opinion.  (Note on my Lexis-Nexis search:  I don't know why JJay's LA Times article didn't (and still doesn't) show up on Lexis-Nexis, but I gather the Orange County Edition, which is archived there daily now, wasn't archived there until after 1990 when Fairmont got the award.)  [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-**(Comment) I do want to note that the closer's statement that "winning [the] award ... fails WP:V, and WP:RS" doesn't seem right, as there is no question that the school won the award according to USDOE's website, which is reliable.  However the closer's main reason to delete stands: the school, let alone its winning of the award, did not garner multiple media coverage.  [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 12:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure/enable recreation''': Copyright issue with the previous version.  `'[[user:mikkalai|mikkanarxi]] 19:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' Per silensor, all schools are inherently notable. -- [[User:Librarianofages|Librarianofages]] 21:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse''' Seems within admin discretion.  No prejudice against creation of a multiply-sourced, non-copyvio version of the article. [[User:Shimeru|Shimeru]] 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse'''. Closing admin's decision was based on the quality of the arguments and was the conclusion any reasonable reader would reach after reading the debate. <span style="font-family:serif;">&mdash;[[User:Ptkfgs|ptk]]✰[[User_talk:Ptkfgs|fgs]]</span> 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). Compliance with copyright law trumps consensus. Scanning the history, I found no non-copyvio version worth keeping. Whether or not a new, non-copyvio article could be created on this topic is a separate question and should be left until we have such an article to discuss. However, I am skeptical of the claim that winning the [[Blue Ribbon Schools Program]] in any one year is an automatic qualifier for an encyclopedia article. It could support a claim for notability but about 300 are awarded each year. Incidentally, that's been running [http://www.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2005/2005-statistics.pdf just over 80%] of those nominated each year. Despite the description as "the highest honor that an American school can achieve", it's not exactly an exclusive award. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-** Your comment is not consistent with wikipedia policy. The article was edited beyond any copyvio state that may have existed. I explained this above, but please see [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages]]. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 23:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-*** Sorry.  My clarification got lost in an edit conlict.  When reviewing the pagehistory, I found no non-copyvio version worth preserving.  While you are correct that we have processes for correcting copyvios introduced into otherwise good articles, I found no evidence to justify such extraordinary measures in this particular case.  The non-copyvio versions I found all occurred after the deletion debate had begun.  Given the urgency of copyvio issues, we are better served with a clean slate. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-***There are two different issues here: judging the merits of a topic for inclusion through an AFD discussion and dealing with a potential copyvio problem. The article does not qualify for a CSD G12 if there were substantial non-copyvio edits - it doesn't matter when those edits took place. [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] exists for a reason and allows editors seven days to correct the problem. It specifically indicates an alternative to deletion, which may include obtaining rights to the material or rewriting the text and restoring w/o copyvio history. There is no urgency here and nothing really extraodinary. Furthermore, you (and some others here) are endorsing the close on the basis of copyright despite the fact that  "copyvio" was not cited by the closer as a justification for the AfD outcome. I would point out that articles deleted as copyvios can be immediately restored in a non-copyvio version (and I assume that an admin would be willing to provide the page history as a courtesy to someone interested in restoring the article). --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' and undelete per Silensor.  If there were copyright violations, remove them as the law requires, but not the entire article.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-**If there were no non-copyvio versions, then taking out the entire article ''is'' what the law requires.  The key word here is "derivative".  Plus, given the verifiability issues, the articles for deletion were that much stronger than those for keeping it.  As is so often said, if you're that concerned, rewrite the article from scratch yourself from [[Wikipedia:reliable sources]].  [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 07:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and undelete''' per Alansohn, JJay, etc. The article did indeed have multiple verifiable sources and there was absolutely no reason for this to have been deleted. [[User:Highfructosecornsyrup|Highfructosecornsyrup]] 01:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Overturn and undelete''' sans any copyvio due to lack of consensus and strong verifiable evidence of notability. [[User:Bbx|bbx]] 09:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''overturn and undelete''' this please except for copyvio but there was strong argument for keeping this not erasure [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)