Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 30: Difference between revisions

Help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:43, 17 December 2006

< November 29	December 1 >

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

30 November 2006

DUMBA – Deletion endorsed, WP:SNOW close as author appears to be contesting the process rather than the result. – 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hey, I have to second jasonfb's comment about the "notability" requirement: dumba explicitly had a policy against courting publicity and discussions in published works, although many do exist, such as Village Voice articles, the proceedings of the Gay Shame conference, Mattilda's book "That's Revolting" I think might mention it somewhere, etc. Does that mean that all such entities will be excluded from Wikipedia? Any good historian or encyclopedia author should be familiar with the tradition of "history from below" pioneered by distinguished scholars such as Eric Wolf and others. Shouldn't Wikipedia live up to its reputation as an agent of the democratization of knowledge with a change in the "notability" requirement? Furthermore, since the space is about to close for good, there is no motive for it to "advertise." Also, the Gay Shame page already links to the (now-deleted) dumba page. Jesse sanford 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been deleted repeated by editors although we have taken great steps to meet all of the notability requiremens of Wikipedia. Specifically, the administrators Mike_Rosoft and Jimfbleak both deleted this page against the notability requirements and Wikipedia's guidelines (We meet the notability requirements and you all know it. This was a community space that gave birth to many, many punk bands between 1995 and 2006-- those bands all have Wikipedia pages, why is the space where they started not allowed to have one?) In fact, we continue to try to get this page up there only to find it GONE in the MIDDLE of editing it or leaving feedback on the Talk page. This is extremely frustrating and we feel we have been shafted in what is a very sincere effort to create a historical archive. We want an explanation and we want the actions editors known under the handles for Mike_Rosoft and Jimfbleak to be braught under larger community review because we feel that there has been an abuse of power here. Jasonfb 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty pissed off at this process and am loosing faith in Wikipedia as a tool for social change by the minute. How can we proceed with this process in a way that will restore my faith that a larger community of people do actually care about collaborative historical archival? I thought this was a group effort. Now I am led to believe that there are few bully editors who are power-happy and get off on trampling on the sincere efforts of people trying to create articles here. I don't want to beleive this, but after trying to do it the right way and going through what I believed were proper chanels for doing this I am now realizing what a totalitarion, exclusive, and self-righteous club you guys are running here. Please, prove me wrong and tell me how to proceed with a process for opening a discussion of how important this page is to Wikipedia. Jasonfb 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now that the notability requirment is obsurdly high: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." DUMBA does in fact qualify for this as it HAS Been the subject of multiple, nontrivial published works. Although the final reqirement for "independent of the subject itself" is going to be very hard because of the definition of the word "independent". If independent means never set foot inside the community space, then this criteria is obsurdly high since hundreds of thousand of people have set foot inside of DUMBA. As for the published works, DUMBA is referred to in several political articles and has been written about in newspapers over many, many years period. I *will find* these sources in the library and cite them explicty when I try to do this again so as to clearly prove the notability requirement within the content of the page.

What is most frustrating is that the very thing we are trying to work against here is hegemonic thinking that only subjects that have had books written about them are worthy of real attention. This is a white-man racist, classist, and sexist way of thinking that needs to be challanged here ok Wikipedia. Jasonfb 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me identify the problems in your review one-by-one, in no particular order:
1. As for opening a discussion of how important this page is to Wikipedia, then congratulations, you've come to the right place. That is exactly what you have done in bringing the matter to Deletion Review. However, I get the distinct feeling you won't like what we'll be saying. Don't take it personally.
2. Your statement about how you clearly meet the requirements (and that we know it) seems rather like those "talented" people on The X Factor. Unfortunately, Simon says no. ;)
3. You say you have been shafted. Do not take what happens on Wikipedia personally. This is usually easier when there is no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the use of the word "we" when referring to anything other than Wikipedia itself tends to be the giveaway.
4. There is a larger community of people that care about collaborative historical archival. They just feel that maybe you haven't "made history" in any way worth writing about yet. Not yet, anyway.
5. Yes, we have our bully editors. We call them rouge admins, the filthy communist scum that they are. Or maybe just moderately socialist scum. Perhaps they're just mildly left-leaning scum. OK, the policital opinion of the scum is not important. :)
6. Finally (most seriously), Wikipedia is not a tool for social change. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
I hope this answers your questions, and sorry if it upsets you. I must endorse this deletion. Chris cheese whine 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a nice way of putting it, Chris. Mine is going to be somewhat shorter, I have to say. Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability ("at the center of several evoluations of the riotgirl and indy film scenes in New York city" and similar terms are far too vague to be taken seriously without specifics and independent sources), nominator is apparently not aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a "tool for social change" or a place to randomly accuse people of being "white-man racist, classist, and sexist". If the nominator does find sources in the library, then he can recreate the article so it cites those sources and shows notability without needing deletion review anyway. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have retreived the contents of the article to User talk:Jasonfb. See also Talk:DUMBA (mistakenly created at Talk:Dumba). - Mike Rosoft 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Guys, I'll admit it: I'm so new here I don't know right now if my comments should preceed or anticeed your comments. I have been a Wikipedia admirer for a few years and I thought I'd try to give back. Not really knowing what I was doing, I created a page half-assed and it got deleted quickly. I get it. I apologize for singling the administrators out specifically, while I do feel that their actions were QUICK (we barely had a moment to edit or discuss the page), I do understand that they were enforcing Wikipedia's notability requirement as they understand it to be.

Now that I've read the notability requirement I see more clearly what a racist, classist, sexist project Wikipedia is itself. In fact, I do not mean to make that accusation of specific people's actions in this case (although I wonder why queer, women, and non-dominant groups are FIGHTING for inclusion and representation here on Wikipedia, seems to raise some RED FLAGS for me at least...). I'm sorry if it came across that way-- I don't think anyone is specifically racist, classist, or sexist. My careful analysis of Wikipedia as a whole is based on the notability requirement, which is essentially at the heart of what is at issue here (And why the pages were deleted.)

OK, so I'm going to take you all at face value here and propose a total shift in topic, for which I'd like real honest answer for each of the editors who responded to me: I know how to install MediaWiki, I even know how to customize it. Why should I not abandon Wikipedia -- accepting that it isn't a place that is representation of our diverse world, register my own domain name and install MediaWiki and then tell all my friends that on this new Wiki, oral history, personal stories, underepresented and underprivileges persons will be given protection and a voice? Why shouldn't I do that, oh great Wikipedia editors? Tell me, I want to know. Right now I'm feeling that Wikipedia doesn't deserve our attention or energy and that there are more creative and powerful ways to use the internet to archive a distrubted editing model to empower under-represented communities to record and represent their own history.

If in fact, this experience makes me do this, then I thank you all, deeply, from the bottom of my heart. This experience with Wikipedia as led me to a deep sense of disappointment with Wikipedia itself, and I appeciate being reminded that not all see it as an opportunity for social change as many do. I appreciate your enlightened feedback on the topics I've raised here (I apologize in advance for straying off-topic somewhat) because that is truly what is at the heart of this matter. 71.139.202.223 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, those comments from IP address 71.139.202.223 were form me (Jasonfb) -- forgot to log-in Jasonfb 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason you shouldn't create your own wiki. Wikipedia is not here to help out under-represented communities. That isn't bad, it's simply not the purpose. If you wish to empower under-represented communities, then by all means, download Mediawiki and create your own website. But don't be surprised if nobody uses it, because you have no requirements for content that would prove they are factual. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not only that (it's not strictly true anyway - WP:CSB does try to address under-represented content on Wikipedia, content that isn't likely to be the interest of the main demographic of editors), but it's that there needs to be third-party neutral content on Wikipedia. Otherwise anyone can write anything on your organization including negative comments (because there would be no standards for sourcing), because remember, you don't WP:OWN any of the content on Wikipedia, so you can't freeze "your" version of the article. If you can find sources, then that would be great! We'd welcome an article on the topic. But only then. ColourBurst 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn As the inspiration and location for a "major motion picture" it's certainly sufficiently notable. At least redirect to Shortbus. --The Cunctator 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediawiki software has been made available so that you, or anyone, can use it to create other sites; if you want to do something more focused (such as a punk rock wiki), or with different rules, such as an oral history wiki, go for it. Let 100 wikis bloom. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like what WP:CSB has to say in fact and I feel that this topic is perfect for inclusions on their task list. I also feel I will receive a friendlier response there than I have received here. I feel that there is systemic bias and this is a perfect example of it. I know you all feel you were just following the guidelines but put yourselves in check here: Why are non-white, non-male, non-straight, and non-privileged people fighting for inclusion on Wikipedia here? If the subject matter in question were white, male, heterosexual, and/or privileged in some other way there would be LOTS OF BOOKS written about it and there would be no question of its notabilty. This example is STRIKING to me and if you don't get it, go do some consciousness raising, study second wave feminism, read Eric Wolf and about his work, GET THE PICTURE GUYS IT IS YOUR KIND OF THINKING THAT IS DIEING OUT. Wikipedia will not realize its dream if it is held back by old-world neo-classical ideas about a unified version of truth and accuracy. We are experiencing a phase shift here and you're either at the edge of it or not. Jasonfb 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been truly amazing and enlightening for me. Very very interesting how this place works and what kinds of things get attention and what kinds of things people notice and respond to. If you re-direct DUMBA to Shortbus without giving it its own page you will have an army of anarchists decending on your servers with guns and knives. Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration. There's a lot of controversy over this and it's amazing to me how an insitution that was so much a part of so many people's lives for 11 years can be whitewashed out of Wikipedia by simply re-directing to the Shortbus page, a movie made in the last 3 years and only teniously connected to DUMBA. Truly amazing. I will be bringing the attention of dozens of activists, social change agents, authors, and community members to this experience of mine (and to the discussion we've been having on this page) in an attempt to expose Wikipedia for what it truly is: the appearance of democracy but the practice of authoritarism. The esposal of egalitarion collaboration as an ideal but the reality of bullying and swift decisions over turning other people's good efforts. This will be exposed. This will not be forgotten. This will be exposed to a larger community of activists and we will work to change this injustice as we see it. 66.93.139.242 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that Wikipedia is a democracy? It isn't. And no personal attacks please. Now, for your argument.

Wikipedia does not accept material that has no sources. Period. Without sources, there is no way to verify that it is in any way true. I'm very sorry that the things you like don't get reliable sources, but if they don't, there is no way at all to decide if an article is factual. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion without prejudice against creating an article which makes some substantiated claim to notability beyond an unsupported assertion of being associated with some non-links and a redlink. I honestly cannot recall any DRV where the argumentation outweighed the size of the article (two sentences, one of which was very short) by such an enormous margin. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw the article on CSD and stayed away from deleting it, but I wasn't quite sure it was AfD, either. Basically, the argument is that it was a major colony "in the 90's." That's the problem: we're talking about something so recent that knowing about "gay history" is impossible. There hasn't been a history of the 90's activism, because we're just out of the 90's. It reminds me of people who talk about how gigantically significant a screen name was in building a web forum that has been going two years. There simply isn't enough distance yet to assess the significance. Further, it would need to be not merely a place people lived/hung out, but a place that had some character, some influence by itself. While the Cabaret Voltaire had an influence/character, and the Chelsea Hotel played a role as a specific place with a specific rent policy, this alternative to DUMBO doesn't seem to cut it. An AfD wouldn't be a bad idea, but I would vote to delete. Geogre 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST Can some one please find the latest version of this article before it was deleted? You will find that it is several paragraphs long and is very different from the one that is made publicly available. 75% of my frustration is that the last thing that was deleted was the best publicly available page ever available on the internet-- albiet available for 12 hours-- and we don't even have a way to retreive it. Can one of the editors find it in the delete archive or tell me how I can do this myself? We have never been given access to the full article during this discussion so this whole discussion has been over an article that no one can see.

SECOND I would like to respectfully reverse my entry of this item onto the Deletion Review page. This means I am endorsing the delete decision even though I am the one who submitted it for review. I see how the page that was written could be interpreted as failing to meet the notability requirement. Once my request above to have the page retreived has been fulfilled, we will re-write it, document and source all our assertions, and resubmit it for review by the editorial board. If it still does not meet criteria after this revision, we will look elsewhere on the internet to tell our story. I apogize for any trouble I have caused in this forum and I thank you for enlightening me to this process. Jasonfb 07:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help can anyone tell me how to get this page back? I'm still really disturbed by this system that won't allow me access to the deleted page but does allow all of the people making the decision about the page (the editors) access to the page. The final version of the page was several paragraphs long and clearly showed many more of the requirements than the previous ones, yet this whole disucssion has been on the original version which contains only 1 paragraph. How is that fair people? The decision makers have complete access to the deleted content but the community at large does not so is therefore unable to make an informed decision? Can someone please help me make sense of this insanse system? I feel that there has been manipulation of the process and I'd like answer about this very point please. If I do not hear an answer, will take this matter to the editors at large. Jasonfb 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that this page was not at all deleted in accordance to Wikipedia's stated process. I would like to revisit the question of whether or not the actions of editors known as Mike_Rosoft and Jimfbleak were appropiate. The page was deleted under "SPeedy deletion" altought that protocol was clearly misused in this case. According to this page: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, articles nominated for deletion because an editor doesn't think the content is appropriate for Wikipedia are given 5 days of disucssion. This article was never given 5 days and I want someone to be held accountable for this misconduct. Jasonfb 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun proceedings to have the actions of the adminsitrators reviewed. Please see [[1]] Jasonfb 18:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from User talk:Jasonfb:

You seem to have taken the deletion rather personally. Please note that I didn't mean it as an attack against you or your group. Dozens of pages are nominated for speedy deletion every day (see CAT:CSD); I have scanned your article and reached a conclusion that it has indeed met the speedy deletion criteria, making no claim of notability. I couldn't see the talk page you have established; the page Talk:DUMBA never existed. You have created it at Talk:Dumba instead. (Note: with the exception of the first letter, page titles are case-sensitive; To Be or Not to Be and To be or not to be are different articles.)

The text of the article (when it was deleted the first time) is below [on the talk page]. - Mike Rosoft 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments do not make any sense. Nobody deletes articles just because their subject is a woman, or black, gay, or a member of another minority group. The point is that memebers of these groups are subject to the same notability guidelines as anybody else. (What else do you suggest? That members of minority groups should have articles even if they don't meet the inclusion criteria?) Not everything gets to have an article on Wikipedia; for an extreme example, an article about a notice posted on the corridor of the ground floor at Hietalahdenkatu 7A, Helsinki, Finland (an actually created article) may well be true and verifiable (should somebody bother himself to photograph it), but was deleted as obviously unencyclopedic. - Mike Rosoft 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, your article is undergoing discussion at deletion review, and three of the four editors who commented have reached the conclusion that the article should have been deleted. And I have been helpful and recovered your article on your talk page for reference, and - if desired - for you to expand and provide reliable sources. (See WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY.) And how did you respond? By starting a request for comment against me, and demanding that I am blocked for two weeks. As far as I see, the only case you have against me is that I deleted the article you have created - I am SO MUCH worried about action being taken against me for it. By the way, like it or not, this kind of tirades won't get you much sympathy. (And finally, do you even read your talk page? I'll copy my comments to the deletion review page.) - Mike Rosoft 19:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creator seems to have a real attitude problem. Keep deleted, especially since he has withdrawn the deletion review and since I have recovered the text of the article on his talk page. He'll have a plenty of opportunity to edit it there and add the references. (Two ψ that he never will.) - Mike Rosoft 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've seen a lot of wrong opinions expressed by people trying to save articles, but the ones expressed by the creator of this article may be the "wrongest" (I know, there's no such word.) The gold standard for inclusion here is the scholarly article. Since academia is fascinated by issues of race, sex and sexuality, the bias is, if anything to overrepresentation of these topics (at least as they apply to Western countries) in WP. We have a lot of articles on Western pop culture (which this organization is an example of), but comparatively few articles about the non-Western world: that is the systemic bias problem, not the "racist, sexist, anti-gay" trope he spewed above. Oh yeah, and endorse deletion, because it is unsourced and I could not find any reliable sources on it. I also think he should start his own wiki where he can write what he wants and it won't get deleted. JChap2007 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason's responses on 12/2:

Mike my problem is this: You have NOT restored the page when it was deleted onto my talk page. You said you did but the version you left on my talk page was not the version you deleted and it was not the version that was the last version of the page which I have asked the editors for again and again. So I want the other editors to know that Mike has misled the public forum here and claimed that he restore the last version of the page when in fact he has not. This remains 75% of my frustration with the process. No one who has commented in this Deletion review process ever saw the latest version of the page. Please explain how you can claim to be making an informed decision. No one has addressed this very real, specific, process-oriented point I've been trying to make again and again.

Are you seriously complaining about me recovering the version with more content? But in case you want the other version back as well, I have also posted it on your talk page.

I understand (and admit) that the page originally appeared not to have met the notabilty requirment, and that is why I have retracted my deletion review-- not because I agree with it, but because I want to comply with the process. I have offered to follow the process accordingly, but no one seems to care that my main objection is to the process itself: (1) the page was deleted by Mike Rosoft although it did not meet criteria for speedy deletion, (2) we clearly had an active debate going that according to the policy the AfD review should have been 5-days. Why are administrators who delete under speedy deletion allowed to do so when a page does not meet the speedy deletion criteria as outlined in the wp:deletion. If this is the wrong place for this process-oriented question, let me know where is the right place.

Now it's you who is misrepresenting the timeline (perhaps unintentionally). First of all you have created your article and Jimfbleak deleted it. Then you re-created - with even less content - and I deleted it again. I can't speak for the other admin, but I did honestly believe that the article had indeed met the speedy deletion criteria. (You claim that it didn't, but I don't think it has actually been established. And had I seen the first version instead, I probably wouldn't have pulled the trigger on it; I would have left it on others to decide.) Only then did you start the request to undelete. - Mike Rosoft 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ignore my comments about racism, classism, and sexism, fine. I'm not going to convince you if you don't already get it. I just want help navigating Wikipedia, thanks in advance. Jasonfb 16:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are allowed to because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Processes are there to prevent good things being removed, not just to be there. Complaints like "Well, yes, it should have been deleted, but the process was not followed!" are frivolous, because the process doesn't exist to make it harder or longer to delete bad things. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

really? Listen to yourself. I can't believe that this makes any sense. You're saying that the process shouldn't be used to determine if something is flawed if the thing is known to be flawed. Well whom is given power to decide that if not the process itself? Really backward thinking in my opinion, but I guess that's how you guys do things over here on Wikipedia. Thanks for enlightening me! Jasonfb 17:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a thing is flawed, and nobody thinks it isn't, then it is frivolous to demand that the process be ran through. You admit that the article should have been deleted, so the only reason to actually run it through AfD would be for the sake of process alone. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov you are totally wrong and here's why: I had about 10 people I was in the process of emailing to encourage them to come get involved with Wikipedia to collabortively work on the DUMBA page with me. The 5-day review process would have given us all time to reflect, consider, and edit the article. It would have also allowed us time to get other people (people who care about history) involved in this process, not just the WP editors. That's my problem with it being deleted quicly-- that it thawarted the process of group colaboration. Now do you understand where I'm coming from with this? If there's a better way, tell me and I will learn from my mistakes. But right now it seems to me that the process itself is the problem, not what I tried to do.Jasonfb 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging yourself a bigger hole. What you say you were going to do is called meatpuppetry, and it is very bad. "Group collaboration" doesn't mean "recruit a bunch of people who have my viewpoint". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you to judge my actions? I am acting in the pursuit of a greater good, and no one seems to be able to help me except to thawrt the process, betray the esposed ideals of the system, and take me down for being the whistle blower. I'm asking for help people. I'm not going away amd I want some answers. Why is there such a gap between the stated ideals of this system and the reality of how it is implemented? Jasonfb 20:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the ideals does it say "Editors may do whatever they please to pursue the greater good". Our purpose is not to be the greater good, or uphold some grand ideals, it's to build an encyclopedia. If building a good encyclopedia goes against your ideals, then form another wiki. Wikipedia is not the place for this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close as endorsed before this descends into crusade territory? Chris cheese whine 07:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yes. The deleted sub-stub was a couple of dozen words! Guy (Help!) 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, guyes. The delete page was several paragraphs long and it has never been made publicly available to us. As I have said, I question this entire debate as it appears no one is looking at the full-version of the page. Jasonfb 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, close whatever you wanna close. But these questions remain unanswered: (1) Why was the full-text of the deleted article never made available publicly during the Deletion Review process even though I have asked for it several times? (2) Why was the page deleted under the criteria for speedy review when it did not meet those criteria? (3) Why is there no oversight of this process and why is no one willing to answer these questions about the process itself or my question about the power dynamics created by having a process where the page in questino is not visible/ Jasonfb 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I do not believe you. Several editors I respect have stated that there was not more content, so I really can not believe that there was more.

(2) That should not have happened, but if it is truly bad, which you admit it is, then why complain?

{3) This appears to be based entirely on (1), which I have already answered. There is simply no reason to believe that editors I respect are lying, and that an admin I respect is deliberately sabotaging your contributions. If that truly is happening, then there is no hope at all for Wikipedia. So if you believe it, you should form your own wiki. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov, Would I be asking for it again, and again, and again, and again if I didn't have access to that final version? I saw it at 9:30 AM on the morning of Nov 30th, it was several paragraphs long and within MINUTES of 9:30 AM on the morning of Nov 30th it was gone. Yes, I feel stupid for not having copied it when it was available but can you imagine my frustration with having to fight with you guys for days about this just to get that text back? Would I be asking again and again if I was making this up? Jasonfb 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, as a result of this experience I have proposed the following change to the deletion policy. I tahnk you all for providing such great evidnece on this page here as to why the deltion policy should be changed. Since this is clearly thepolicy in effect, why don't you go vote for this new deletion language that more accurately refelcts the reality of using Wikipedia: Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Proposed_Change_to_the_Deletion_Policy

Thanks Jasonfb 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Your theory assumes that at least two well-known editors are deliberately lying because they dislike you, and that there is an admin with a personal vendetta against either you or your article (admins never are corrupt in general for any lasting time). When the alternative is that this is just one of the many articles deleted for a good reason, yet slightly out of process, I can not believe that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov, P.S.. I don't think anyone is deliberately sabatoging my contributions. I do think that I've raised some serious qestions about the process that have gone unanswered, and that for that reason people aren't interested in helping me. Why, for example, is the page not automatically made available again by the software when it is on Deletion Review? Wouldn't that seem like it would make more sense than what you guys have put me through? Jasonfb 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why. You'll have to ask someone, if they're willing to answer you after this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I may be acting above my station here, but we're moving away from the deletion itself. It seems clear that it has been endorsed, and the article author now wants to go on some crusade about how policy or process is somehow wrong, which is clearly not what DRV is for. Wikipedia generally doesn't care about process, as long as the correct result is reached. If it seems the deletion is being endorsed, when whether or not process was followed precisely to the letter becomes irrelevant. Deletion review is primarily for objecting to the end rather than the means (see also WP:SNOW). Chris cheese whine 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In the interest of observing the DR process, I will take this matter to another place then. Jasonfb 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh.. I have finally retreived the full-text of the article. No one had a real discussion on this page, because no one saw the full text. The full text was finally retreived for me here User:Jasonfb/Dumba Jasonfb 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Risembool Rangers – Overturned and relisted at AfD – 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article was deleted for being "non-notable." However, being one of the largest fangroups on the internet (with over 2600 members currently, and rapidly growing) in this genre is indeed notable, and we are requesting that the article be please be reviewed for undeletion.

Procedural note - this was an uncontested WP:PROD, and was deleted by Youngamerican (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on November 3, 2006. Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. When I delete any prod, I always scan the article to see if there is anything that could make the article worth keeping around or having an WP:AfD. In this case, I saw nothing. I am just not convinced that a fan group with 2600 (or 26,000 even) members is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That being said, my feelings would not be hurt if an AfD was held, if for no other reason than to give a new user a feel for process, but I am almost certain that an AfD would result in a deletion, also. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A7 Deletion. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: A fan group with 2,600 members wouldn't be largest of "groups of fans of all things." Consider the various NFL booster clubs out there, the various college sports "alumni associations" that control access to season tickets. No. Instead, this is a web presence for a web fan club of a particular thing and then becomes largest of those. That's too much qualification for notability to be given simply for size. Add to that the problems endemic with verifying web groups, the fluid way that "membership" is determined, and the transience of all fan groups, and you get to something that is far too new, far too specialized, and far too unverifiable to present a claim for notability (which is what the prod would be about). Valid Prod. Geogre 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why: Whether it's a contested prod or not, it's an A7. In other words, it should have been deleted on sight anyway, so the use of Prod, with its any-question-is-out catch, seems wrong in this case. (I also think that the prod catch is wrong, as it ought to be any contesting by anyone other than the author.) Geogre 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to AfD. Contesting a prod after its deletion still counts as a contested prod, per WP:PROD#Conflicts: "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any admin without discussion." A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:PROD reads, that is correct. However, that statement seems to have been added by User:RobertG (who, by the way, is a user that I hold in high regard) "based on his experiences" (ie his interpretation) [2] and without any discussion that I could find. I tend to disagree with that statement and its inclusion in PROD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overturn and send to AFD~~ Any contest of a prod is enough to undelete. See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Proposed deletions for the section of deletion review where this should have been listed. Since some commentators believe that deletion is the right answer, a listing at AFD should follow. As a webbased organization, the AFD should be about compliance with either WP:WEB or WP:ORG. GRBerry 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion on the A7 deletion. What I said before about the relevant standards remains true, any recreation should demonstrate compliance using sources as described at WP:INDY. GRBerry 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A7 deletion, I have amended the log (by restoring and redeleting) so that this is an A7 issue, not a PROD issue. If admins are clearing out PRODs and come across one that falls under WP:CSD, I believe they should mention CSD in the deletion log and not PROD, otherwise we get this sort of confusion. Anyway, the article made no assertion of notability - Vic Mignogna is notable but that doesn't mean his offical fanclub is. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Considering that the Risembool Rangers is the ONLY official Fanclub for Vic Mignogna it shouldn't be removed. It is true that the Rangers one of THE largest ANIME VOICE ACTOR FANGROUPS out there. They have memebers in the UK, Scottland, Australia, New zealand, almost every state in the US, Canada, Even in some asian countries. There are videos on YouTube showing off the insane fun that his fangroups has, the membership jumped from 1,000 in April of 06 to 2,600+ with still only a month left till the New Year. If that's not record breaking for anime fans I don't know what is. You can't compair it to something like the NFL. It's not. It's an ANIME Fangroup. And this group is pretty damn large for just one person.
- — 70.107.81.168 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Being the only fanclub for something does not mean it meets WP:NOTE. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Since the Risembool Rangers are known throughout the internet and it is the only fanclub of Vic Mignogna, it should stay. The Rangers are THE largest fanclub of a voice actor there is, and it really should be kept since it would make a lot of people angry. Not only do we have members in the US, but we have members all over the world from Germany to Austrailia! We have over 2,000 members and it would be a shame to have to put the whole thing down now. We are an anime fanclub and we should have a wikipedia. Our leader, Vic Mignogna, has one, so why shouldn't we? We worked HARD for our goal and I think we should be able to have our Wiki file back.
- — Xaruelricx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Send to AfD. I don't approve of gaming the system the way it just has by undeleting the prod just so it can be deleted as an A7. A contested prod is a contested prod, and now deserves a hearing at AfD, full stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, that assumes that a PROD cannot be a speedy. I don't think that's the case, and have occasionally stumbled across something that ought to have been speedied. I suppose that does require a flexible outlook on the nature of the system, though. Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. A valid speedy is still a valid speedy, whether or not it has been nominated for deletion by any other method. In fact, if I've got my reading right, ProD is subordinate to all other deletion processes. Chris cheese whine 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Subordinate to all but rouge admin deletions. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... which means nothing in what appears to be a valid speedy anyway. Chris cheese whine 04:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unaware of any way that the reason behind a deletion can be changed other than to undelete and redelete the article. If you know of another way, please explain it, because I assume you're not suggesting that all you have to do to make your article immune from speedy deletion is to stick a PROD tag on it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. However, this was already deleted by one process. To undelete it just to delete it under a speedy, especially an A7 which is different from other speedies, reeks of gaming the system. This certainly couldn't hurt from an AfD if someone's challenging the prod - after all, that's what the prod process asks for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Risembool Rangers are such a well-known internet trope that they have a grand total of 238 Google hits. You have failed to prove your premise. Endorse deletion, just because a CSD candidate went through Prod instead, doesn't mean that the CSD criterion doesn't apply. If it gets undeleted, I'll speedy it as it should have been done. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete & Send to AfD Process is important for several reasons, however, if only because circumventing process would reduce confidence in the outcome, then this deletion should be handled at AfD. There's an assertion of notability and the implication that there is reason to retain the article & improve it. Deletion review doesn't seem to be the right forum for a full debate of the merits of the article. As both sides are represented in this deletion review, I don't see it as the kind of noncontroversial broom & dustpan work CSD applies to. Let me be clear: I have no opinion on the worthiness of keeping this article, as I can't actually look at the article to reach any other conclusion about it. For these reasons, undeletion & AfDing would be the method by which we could look at the article & reach a conclusion in keeping with deletion policy. --Ssbohio 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Charlie the Unicorn – Deletion endorsed – 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article has been deleted because for being "non-notable"; according to Mackensen: "Mr. Unicorn has to stand or fall on his own merits, which appear to be lacking." There definitely needs to be some sort of standard established regarding acceptable citations and sources for internet memes such as this one, if the Kitty Cat Dance, Zombo.com and Cheese Weasel is acceptable but Charlie isn't... it's too confusing. Furthermore, I might be counting wrong, but I see more votes for keep than delete on the deletion discussion page. misanthrope 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual debate was here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, so the actual numbers aren't that relevant. The article failed reliable sources, and many of the keep voters, including yourself, focused on the existence of other articles as a reason to keep, but that's no reason at all. Inclusion of other articles has never been a valid reason to keep. I stand by my close. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no third-party reliable sources presented or any other substantial proof of notability - Google searches, view counts etc. are not proof of notability. The presence of other articles does not justify this one. We already have "some sort of standard established regarding acceptable citations and sources for internet memes", you can find it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, same as with any subject. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the usual range of keeps based on liking it, it isn't harming anyone, WP:INN etc. etc. --pgk 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion No evidence of abuse of discretion by the closing admins. Closing admins are explicitly authorized to pay less or no attention to the views of those that don't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We do have a guideline for webbased content; it is Wikipedia:Notability (web) (shortcut WP:WEB). No keep opiners in the AFD asserted that it had the coverage or awards to meet those criteria. No keep opiners made an argument from a policy that overrides consensus. GRBerry 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a completely valid AfD closure. Nobody who wanted to keep the article pointed to any reliable sources or any passage of WP:WEB. -- Kicking222 02:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mesilla Valley Mall – Deletion endorsed – 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted as part of a mass nomination. Prior to its deletion I improved the article and added several sources, and had planned to continue adding more. If I was able to locate this much information pertaining to the structure, despite that I live nowhere near it and had never heard of it, it should be easy enough for somebody to do the same for the other items. — CharlotteWebb 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion your edits haven't addressed the failure to establish notability or third party sources, at a glance the main elements of the AFD arguments. The subject of the only third party source was the fact that someone "famous" (Tyrone Nelson) was arrested there, this event doesn't establish any notablility for the mall itself --pgk 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. I see no reason why CharlotteWebb should be prevented from expanding an article she was working on. Silensor 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that of any article which ever comes up for deletion, someone merely says I'm working on expanding it and we don't delete? This is actually the point of deletion review, if CharlotteWebb (or anyone else) can shed new light on the subject which address the issues of the AFD then we undelete, so far there hasn't been anything new offered. The sources listed on the current article are 2 sources for the arrest story, the malls own website, various satellite images and streetmap. I'm not sure which of those several sources were added but none address the issues of the AFD, just because you can find streetmaps and satellite images of somewhere doesn't make it magically notable (You can do that for my house, it isn't notable). Indeed if CharlotteWebb improved the article after the AFD commenced, I'd have hated to see it before the improvements, in it's current form there is a four sentence intro, one saying where it is located, one saying when it was built and tow listing store there. There is a section listing stores there (which essentially duplicates some of the intro), there is a larger section than the into describing the arrest for which the mall itself is effectively irrelevant, someone "famous" being arrested there does not make it a notable place, again no more than someone famous being arrested outside my house would make my house a notable place --pgk 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, created by Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an employee of the mall's operating company as part of a spamming campaign. Sole claim to fame is being the place where Tyrone Nelson was arrested, that story is already covered in Nelson's article. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Already covered" is a bit of a misnomer, check the timestamps. — CharlotteWebb 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just happened to notice that another mall deleted (speedily, in fact) by the same admin JzG is doing rather well on AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradise Valley Mall). I am close to requesting that each of them (some of which I never got the chance to read) be separately listed rather than mass-nominated based on their association with this user you keep calling a vandal. — CharlotteWebb 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You must do what you think fit, but please note that I posted this and the reasons on the admin noticeboard at the time. Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in a spamming campaign, and I cleaned it up. The usual rule with deleted spam articles is that there is no prejudice against re-creation with sources establishing encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The mall article Charlotte mentions has nothing in common with this article. No problem with a referenced article that asserts notability being created on this mall. The one that was deleted was both unreferenced (the only reference was for the Tyrone Nelson thing), and failed to assert notability (all it said was "Mesilla Valley Mall is a shopping mall located in Las Cruces, New Mexico", then the inappropriate section about Nelson, then listed the stores. Proto::type 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Valid AfD and valid closing. Yanksox 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Valid AFD. No abuse of discretion by closer. No keep arguments based in a policy that overrides AFD consensus. As the page is not protected, if a new article is created that overcomes the concerns of the AFD it can go in without review here. To overcome the AFD concerns, such an article should 1) not be based on the original spam - (trivial, just don't look at the history) and 2) be a good encyclopedia article written based in independent reliable sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Amnesia test. GRBerry 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Malls stick around for a long time and are significant institutions in any community. The idea that they shouldn't exist in Wikipedia is blatant elitism. Oh, and the article was beautifully and tediously specific and had the kind of dull prose that is prefered these days on the site. Which, I might mention, was evidence of a lot of effort by contributors, who should be encouraged rather than smacked down for their work. --The Cunctator 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a redo of the AfD, so it really doesn't matter if you dislike the ideas there (which, by the way, were that ANY non-notable articles shouldn't exist in Wikipedia. And, oh boy, if "A lot of effort" was grounds for keeping... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think of malls in the same way I think of high schools: Only notable localy. ---J.S ^(T/C) 02:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Warrant officer (Star Trek) – Deletion endorsed – 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon[ish] (though never clearly established) and numerous times in star trek novels IIRC (not cannon but still human knowledge). It is perhaps best to toss this article to Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia as a section. It should still be undeleted and 'Rediretified'. See also: [3]

--Cat out 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rediretify Make it so! Actually, whats up with this Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia? Bwithh 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin, it has been requested that I provide the reasons for the deletion. I closed it as a delete because after 5 days at Afd there was an obvious consensus that it was original research. At the risk of !vote counting, there were 14 deletion votes and none in favour of keeping the article. Viridae ^Talk 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be restored. It was nominated by someone for deletion who has a history of quick, "in the middle of the night" purges of these Star Trek rank articles without any discussion. Also, the tone of the delete page seems t be from those with a dislike of the subject and a bias from the article. All that aside, Warrant officer has been referenced in at least 3 Pocket Books novels, one Star Trek tech manual, a comic book series, and can be found in the costume producers notes for Star Trek II. UNDELETE -Husnock 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (re-delete). I see no process problems with the deletion discussion and no new evidence to justify overturning the decision. In fact, it's incredibly rare to see a unanimous deletion discussion like this. Regardless of any hypotheses about the nominator's motivations, the community consensus was clear. I do note that this page was unilaterally undeleted within hours of the closure of the deletion discussion. I can find no justification to support such action in the face of such a clear consensus. Redelete and strip the disputed content back out of the target page. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to have been turned into a redirect page now. -Husnock 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, after an apparently unjustified undeletion. Rossami (talk)
Endorse Deletion clear consensus on AfD. No opinion on whether it should be a redirect or not. Eluchil404 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Something needs doing about that target article too. I think that there's sufficient problems with verifying conjectured aspects of a fictional universe that it counts as fancruft. Chris cheese whine 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per nominator'sa powerful argument: The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon[ish] (though never clearly established) - i.e. speculative article on a minor aspect of a fictional universe. Otherwise known as fancruft. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there wasn't a single 'keep' vote - why is this even being reviewed? This has prompted me to AFD the parent article, which is similarly nothing but conjecture and OR. Proto::type
Your motivations are now known. Your statement is clearly dismissing the well referenced material in that article. -Husnock 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. How shameful that Proto's actions be driven by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. I mean, how very dare they ... Chris cheese whine 13:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - I was the original nominator, the latest in my long, shady and scandalous history of purging uncited, unreferenced fan conjecture inserted by zealous editors who don't comprehend the notion of burden of proof. Husnock, bless his heart being out on a boat somewhere, asserts he has all these citations and references back home to back this stuff up -- in which case, the material should come down now and re-added with citations later, or point someone to these mystery sources so they can do it for him.. But lacking a firm, specific bit of evidence to support these ranks' existence, it's just conjecture. I wrote the one footnote piece for the one supposed WO rank that appears on that page pointing out it is conjecture. Having taken the time to familiarize myself with what distinguishes Wikipedia from Memory Alpha, I realize that the fanboy conjecture piece isn't appropriate here. BTW, can anyone calling for this article's restoration make a compelling case for other NINE imaginary/extrapolation ranks that appear on that page? They aren't even "cited" to that fanboy Spike's rank page, I believe. --EEMeltonIV 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly you are most incivil. Who are you calling zealous? Who do you think you are to dismiss people? Have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your tone is unacceptable.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Anything notable and citable is welcome here. It is not required to be canon. Generally speaking fanon is often non-notable. Star Trek can easily be a different story. Star Trek: The Animated Series is fanon and is more than notable. WO ranks are non-canon material that has appeared on various publications such as in novels and tech manuals.
- You do not seem to have the basic understanding of what the project scope of Memory Alpha is. Project scope of Memory Alpha is canon star trek + ST:TAS only. Anything else such as information on Star Trek fanon, birds, reptiles, US presidents, international politics as well as vast variety of topics covered here on wikipedia.
- --Cat out 03:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain to me whey this article was undeleted in the first place, without at least running it by the admin that closed the afd - me. Viridae^Talk 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the deletion log: "restoring it so sources can be found and the merging process is cleaner -- it's in progress being merged into a main article. don't worry, this'll stay a redirect" was part of User:Messedrocker's edit summary. It is currently a redirect to Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia, which itself is under AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia. GRBerry 14:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read that, astill doesnt explain why the admin that undeleted went against the consensus of the afd AND didnt run it past the closing admin when they undeleted. Viridae^Talk 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it isn't unreasonable to maintain history and still remove the article. I, one of the major contributor to the article was not even notified of the AFD...
    - The non-negotiable fact is that the page in question will never grow to be a full article. So the prudent course of action is to merge it with the relevant article and hence maintain the articles history. A redirect is practically a deleted page.
    - --Cat out 03:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would people please stop spelling canon as cannon? User:Zoe|(talk) 04:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is also not cannon, in that it is utterly useless as a means of launching projectile weapons. :-) Chris cheese whine 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The words warrant officer have never been spoken on Star Trek to my knowledge. The article is conjenctural and speculative. The main plank of the article are the words: "It has often been interpreted as a Warrant Officer rank^{[citation needed]}"- the lack of this citation seems fatal overcoming WP:OR or WP:V, nevermind further problems of notability... -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Cheese house – Deletion endorsed – 07:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This afd a while ago on a marginal vote - I have re-written it and would like it to have another life - but it keeps getting deleted as it has a failed afd in its history Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article is slightly expanded from the version deleted via AfD, but no version that I can find has cited any reliable sources, which would be required to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, original research from the title on, no sources = no compelling reason to overturn AfD. Every appearance that this is a neologism used by a very small number of people. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ice Age (band) – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There was a clear consensus on the AfD to Keep. There are no allegations of sock-puppets or bad faith votes. When queried the deleting admin cited WP:MUSIC but Prolog's argument in the AfD was that they meet criteria number 5 of that guideline and it seems to have been accepted by other participants. Eluchil404 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Magna Carta Records is not a major label company in any way – [4]. Moreover, the Ghits are too low for this band. Most of those links are to weblogs and not to any major media site. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all perfectly good arguments for deletion, but not for ignoring a clear consensus (as oppossed to say a bare majority) in favor of keeping an article. An admin's role in closing an AfD is primarily to carry out the will of the community not to make an independent assesment of notability. Eluchil404 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:MUSIC #5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Independent label? Check. History of more than a few years? Check. Roster of notable performers? Check. Four of the keep votes are based in the guideline, so this is more than open and shut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My personal scoring is 1-0 delete. Chris cheese whine 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As scary as that little page is, using your chart I get 1.5/.5 to keep. What gives? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you get 1.5 for keep? Nomination scores .5, first comment appears to be a "keep" vote with a "delete" argument, .5 (this method scores arguments, not votes, for very good reason, "POV, and also bad" is clearly not a "keep" argument). As for the rest, one says "doesn't meet A7", with a link that doesn't prove much; one says "look, they're on AMG" even though being on AMG is not an indicator; one says "international recognition" with no indication of such; and one "me too" to the other three - all of which score 0, hence it too scores 0 (even though only one "me too" only ever scores 0 anyway). At worst, it's 0.5/0, which at best suggests a relist. That said, the result certainly looks questionable, and the administrator certainly should have explained his reasoning for the delete close when doing it. I'm sat squarely on the fence with this one. Chris cheese whine 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since you asked, .5 for a keep argument based in policy/guideline, right? We've got three of those. I put .5 due to the nom. Whatever, it's all silly, but this clearly shouldn't have been deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't have three of those. As I said, the keep comments were either non-issues, or didn't actually back up the arguments. Chris cheese whine 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two questions. Why is the nom (a bare unevidenced argument "not notable") scored .5 but similar arguments in the comments scored 0? And why does the comment by Prolog which clearly tracks WP:MUSIC#5 though it doesn't actually link the guideline not count as a policy based keep? Eluchil404 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I allow the nominator a bit of latitude, and assume they have at least done some thinking before proposing deletion. I see "non-notable" as the reason for nomination, I assume they have at least checked, and read this as "having done some research, it appears this entity is non-notable". For everyone else, "Delete, non-notable" in the debate scores zero. Zero for the nominator is reserved for clear-cut cases of ignorance, bad faith. Given that neither side manages a full point, and the nomination was particularly weak, with only a half-dozen having participated in the debate my temptation is to say "no consensus" and suggest a relist. Chris cheese whine 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, undelete. What's wrong with "assuming mistake" or "assuming difference of opinion"? But anyway, two full-length albums on arguably notable label, two reviews in the article (as far as I'm concerned when it comes to music, websites, assuming they're not Blogspots, Tripods, Geocities etc, can be considered reliable unless someone has a good reason otherwise), I don't see any reason for the closing admin's decision. He certainly didn't give one when closing the AfD. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, most of the Google links are to weblogs. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, do not re-list. No valid rationale for deleting the article. Nomination made by what appears to be a deletionist role account/sockpuppet. — CharlotteWebb 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- do not relist is not a valid option. All articles undeleted as a result of the DRV process must be relisted. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? Seriously nothing that I have seen on DRV or the undeletion policy says that relisting is mandatory. It is usual but if deetion is clearly improper not necessary. In this case I have no opinion as to whether or not the article should be relisted but it is simply innacurate to say that it is a given. See [5] [6] etc. Eluchil404 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deleted - this article has made no assertion of its notability, as per CSD A7. Not to mention it was a blatant puff piece. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion of notability was definitely made in the AfD persuant to our guidelines, even if it didn't make it into the article proper at the time (although, given the existence of the two albums on the label, the information on the albums at the page should have been enough). It was not speedied, and this would have been a valid challenge to that speedy if that were case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, try to establish a more firm consensus one way or the other. Examining whether Magna Carta Records meets the notability guidelines might be a good idea, since most of the keep arguments on this article's AfD hinged on the fact that the band was signed to that label. --Slowking Man 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magna Carta Records has JUST had new information added (not present at the time of the close) that suggests it is indeed a label of some note. (Kansas (band) is a major group, any label that does their albums is thus a major label) In reviewing the band article as it was at the time of the close, and the label article as it was at the time of the close, and the arguments presented in the AfD, I think NhNick acted reasonably. We judge consensus, yes, but it's not nose counting, it's weighing the arguments. The keep arguments were weak and not very well founded. When one goes against the numerics, it often is good to present as detailed a rationale as one can. I think Nick could have given a much better rationale for his decision (something I've been dinged for in the past as well) but he wasn't wrong in the decision itself. The article authors (and the MCR article authors) did a disservice by not including the info that would establish notability.. . we cannot expect closing admins to chase references down 3 layers to see if maybe some OTHER article is notable but not properly set up. SO... I think it was a good AfD but nevertheless in light of the new information Overturn no relist ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn without prejudice to closer: indeed the article on Magna Carta Records was sadly lacking when it came to establishing that it is indeed a well-recognised label. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Phil Boswell; notability of Magna Carta Records has been established and expanded. FTR I voted Keep in the original AfD for this band. Chubbles 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per notability ---J.S ^(T/C) 02:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before giving my rationale for deletion, I must assure all the users that I will not take any decision upon the closure of this DRV personally. I believe I did my homework, but I regret not making comments while closing the AfD. My rationale for deletion is as follows –
My deletion was based on the non-significance of Magna Carta records – [7]. Less than 17,000 google hits. Notable enough to have an article on the encyclopedia, but not enough to be counted among the majors.

Kudos to Phil for expanding that article a bit, but a few more lines and a few well-known artists does not a "label" make. (atleast not a significant one).

Less than 90 hits for the Ice Age band when you google it – [8] and [9] (less than 60 here); and one of the first links to come up is from Wikipedia; and the other links are to forums and discussion websites.

Absolutely non-notable, in my opinion.

Independent label? Yes. That's all correct as per the guideline; but is the band notable? Absolutely not.

I have recreated the article here for those who would like to have a look again; and you will see the lack of solid references and external links. Cheers. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that WP:MUSIC maps out exactly how we can deduce if a label is important or not, one of which involves other notable acts. That was more than demonstrated. You may disagree with that part, but it's there. Thus, the band is notable based on our already too tight guidelines, using the logic we as a community have created by consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you had a look at the article I re-created for your convenience? Read the article carefully, its a POV-laden advertisement which goes against WP:NOT#SOAP. There is a reason why WP:NOT is a policy and WP:MUSIC is a guideline. The references are from what look like blog sources; the article itself was a puffed up piece of cruft ridden with redlinks (read WP:RS and WP:V). Another reason why Wikipedia is not the tyranny of majority . Where are you going to get the sources and proper references for the article? Weblogs? Geocities? Online gossip forums? — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 10:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted - Look at what google shows, all I see is 83 hits, mostly from Wikipedia mirrors. That, in my opinion, is bog all notability. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, as there does not seem to be a consensus.--Fuuchild 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist It might lose more fairly this time.--T. Anthony 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist per T. Anthony. I couldn't state it better myself. Let the community have a second crack at it. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
overturn per phil boswell please do not relist this one Yuckfoo 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, we still need to determine other factors which mitigate its' inclusion, such as WP:V, WP:OR etc., as well as clarify WP:MUSIC's provisions. However, given the above evidence of notability (which, in my honest opinion, extends it past a CSD), weak overturn. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per Phil. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 08:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I would have personally given a "delete" for the article concerned (fails inclusion criteria as RS not present, and nothing shows up on Google search), but seems that deletion was closed without all opinions pouring in. To give more time for the community to assess the notability of the article, I think relisting would be best. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Although I would normally propose "Delete" as well, as the original article had a very advert tone, see cached copy at Answers.com - e.g.,

The band members' talents deserve to be individually recognized, as each is a noted master of their respective instrument...

- Endless blue 22:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Nobody "deserves" a Wikipedia article. Each article stands and falls on its own merits. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_30&oldid=94816232"

Hidden category:

Noindexed pages

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ===30 November 2006===
-{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
-|-
-! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Hilal Khashan]] – Deletion overturned, sent back to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilal Khashan|AfD]] – 19:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-|-
-| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
-|-
-| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
-:{{la|Hilal khashan}}
-:{{la|Hilal Khashan}} — ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilal khashan|AfD]])
-This article was deleted after the AfD discussion ended with '''5 keeps''' and '''2 deletes'''. [[ Nearly Headless Nick ]], who did not reply to a message I left on his talk page,  provides no motivation for his decision. I surmise anti-Muslim bias. [[User:Stammer|Stammer]] 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Comment''' including what I would consider a personal attack in a request for review isn't the best of starts ("I surmise anti-Muslim bias"). Either that or a rather lame attempt at playing the "race card". If the person is Muslim or not is irrelevant the question is does he meet the required standards. AFD is not a vote, looking at the argument presented two of the three deletes (the nom is a delete) explicitly mention the standards for inclusion of academics ([[WP:PROF]]) and one concurs with the other two. For keeping one assertion that being a professor for that university is notable (which isn't what [[WP:PROF]] says), another stating a professor at a University professor with an American degree must be notable (again contrary to [[WP:PROF]]) Two asserting that the [[WP:PROF]] standards are met (not directly) but without giving any further information to back that up. And one citing some references. On this cursory look, I'm not convinced the delete decision was the right one, but certainly based on the arguments presented within the bounds of admin discretion. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn deletion'''. I don't know who got the idea that AfD decisions should be based on fulfilling ''proposals'', but it's wrong. Especially when the keep voters state why it fulfils said proposals. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn deletion'''.  His notability was more than demonstrated in the AfD, so I'm not sure where this closure comes from. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Obviously improperly closed deletion vote/discussion. <b>Undelete</b> [[Hilal Khashan]] and do not relist. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' mainly because the closing admin didn't seem to address the sources given.  [[User:ColourBurst|ColourBurst]] 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist'''  If [[WP:PROF]] isn't the basis for decision because it is merely a proposal, we fall back (as per the nomination) to [[WP:BIO]].  I don't see a consensus here.  For the two linked sources, they are simply passing mentions of his research, not enough sourcing to support an article.  So I don't know what the right answer was.  I am not comfortable that discretion was properly used, but neither am I confident that a keep outcome is correct.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
-*<s>'''Weakly endorse deletion'''</s>('''Relist''', see below) , per [[WP:V]]: <blockquote>The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. '''If {{red|an article topic}} has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'''</blockquote>In this case, I believe the sources provided do not fufill this - they are only passing mentions, and are not directly on the article topic (the professor). Sorry, but I believe that although it was line-ball, Sir Nick had justification to do this. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[&nbsp;[[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 02:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*:'''Comment''' I will not go into the the motivations to keep or delete, since this is not the proper forum. We are reviewing the admin decision, not the article, which has already been discussed in the proper  AfD forum. So, let me try to sum this upas follows "[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] supports admins who overturn a 5keeps-2deletes decision '''without providing any motivation'''". Is this correct? If it is, you should put it in your campaign platform. I noticed that [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington]] is supporting you for ArbCom, so I guess he already knows where you stand on this. [[User:Stammer|Stammer]] 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*::Admins are allowed to interpret policy when closing debates, even if this means discarding some votes. Yes, it would have been good if he had have explained this in his deletion summary, but that doesn't change this fact. I also ask you stop bringing irrelevant context into this debate - your jibe at my ArbCom candidacy is not required, and my allegiance with Sir Nick is not because of this, but rather mutual respect, something you don't have from me for that last comment. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[&nbsp;[[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*::'''Reply''' I provided accurate contextual information, which I still regard as relevant here. This excerpt from [WP:GAFD] may also be appropriate : ''A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep"''. If you think that the decision in this case reflected consensus, then  you and Sir Nick may be getting the respect that you deserve. [[User:Stammer|Stammer]] 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*:::I've already said he should have explained his decision, and yes, that is an error. But procedually, he is well within his rights to place policy above concensus when closing. [[WP:V]] is policy. I'll happily comprimise with a '''relist'''. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[&nbsp;[[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn'''.  The community consensus was obvious here and it wasn't for delete.  At the very least, it should go back for more debate.  <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">-- [[User:Shinmawa|ShinmaWa]]<sup>([[User_talk:Shinmawa|talk]])</sup></font> 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' - appears at least borderline, too small a number of commenters to reach an informed consensus, and I can't read the article to comment further. User:Stammer's incivility and personal attacks, which should be discontinued immediately, are appalling but don't change the result. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*:: I believe that pointing to relevant contextual information about an argument is the right thing to do. I was NOT  the first who mentioned loss of respect in this discussion. I do not see how providing accurate information and replying adequately may be regarded as incivility. Anyways, appeals to civility are always a good thing and I welcome them even when I deem them unwarranted. [[User:Stammer|Stammer]] 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*:::"''I surmise anti-Muslim bias''" is neither relevant, contextual nor accurate.  [[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> 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''overtturn deletion''' there was no explanation for this and good reasons to keep please help prevent this bias [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  Majority vote does not trump policy, and it is '''''policy''''' that an article provide verifiability.  This has not been forthcoming.  Stammer's attacks on others in this discussion are entirely inappropriate, and verge on disruption.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn deletion'''. I don't know what the content of the article was at the time of deletion, but the subject is verifiable as being a professor, and is at least arguably notable. I don't care either way if the article is relisted (but at any rate it should be moved to a properly capitalized form of the name first). There was no consensus to delete in the AfD discussion. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-*: The article had already been moved to the correct title, with the uncapitalised version being a reditect. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Relist''' Can't find any trace of the article, and it seems like with the amount of discussion, it should be re-reviewed. [[User:Endless blue|Endless blue]] 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn & do not relist''' Arguments that the article, as written, is not [[WP:V|verifiable]] are arguments for improvement, not deletion.  Wanting to delete an article unless there's good reason to keep it is like wanting to arrest someone unless there's good reason not to.  Per policy, the default outcome of an XfD is ''keep''.  It is up to those favoring deletion to impeach the article, and to engender a consensus favoring deletion.  That didn't happen here.  --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 12:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-**Actually, if you read [[WP:V]], you'll find it's absolute non-negotiable word-of-god über-policy, so actually failing it ''is'' sufficient grounds for deletion.  The default outcome of an XfD is only ''keep'' when the three core policies are met.  If those three basic requirements are not met, the default result must be ''delete''.  I was somewhat tempted to go for relist, but given the appellant's insistence that the outcome was the result of "anti-Muslim bias" puts it well into '''endorsement''' territory, ''however'', if there is likely to be some doubt from the vote-counters, then the administrator should ''explain their reasoning''.  [[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> 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-:::'''Comment''' The issue of [[WP:V]] wasn't even raised in the AfD debate. Actually, the article provided references to the subject's publications (amply confirmed by a Google Scholar search) and further sources were provided during the discussion. [[User:Stammer|Stammer]] 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
-|-
-| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
-|}
 {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
 |-