Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 31

31 July 2009

Orly Taitz

Orly Taitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following is the reason the closing Admin gave:

The result was delete and redirect to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. In the five days since this debate opened, the article essentially remained a stub, and there wasn't enough biographical information added to prove she is notable beyond the "birther" debate. Granted, there was a fairly large majority of "Keeps," but articles like this are, to my mind, a textbook example of why AFD is not a vote. Blueboy96 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why the subject of the article needs to be notable beyond the birther movement in order to have its own article. The birther movement is notable (it has its own article) which to me clearly indicates that notable people within the movement are also notable. The fact that the article remained a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. As time goes on and more information comes out, the article will grow accordingly. Dems on the move (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E, since yes, a person has to have notability beyond a single issue, i.e. birthers. This is evident by the edit warring on the 1E section, and then the universal rejection of his edits on the talk page. As for the closing admin's rationale, IMO he was correct to discount a portion of the "keep" votes, as there were a lot of WP:SPAs and flawed "Taitz was on TV last night!" types of WP:ILIKEIT entries. A tough call to make, but should be allowed to stand. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that although the SPA notice was placed on the top of the page, there was only one instance noted on the page of an SPA. When I saw that noticed placed on the page I almost removed it since I knew it would have an impact on the decision to close the discussion, one way or the other. So no, there were not "a lot of SPAs". IncidentalPoint (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add that the discussion should stay on topic, and not slide to the personal level the way that Tarc is attempting to turn this into a discussion about me. As can be seen, I'm not the only one who supports overturning the decision to delete. Dems on the move (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing personal against you, and if you take it that way that's really not my problem. What I have done is picked apart your argument, as you are not applying BLP policy correctly, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not "picked apart [my] arguments". What you are doing is using ad hominem arguments. Dems on the move (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Argumentum ad hominem would be someone attacking you personally to defeat your position, rather than arguing against the position you take. What I have done is attack your interpretation (i.e. position) of BLP policy, which is fundamentally flawed. So please, don't toss out the fancy Latin when you don't know what it actually means, ok? Ok. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point by repeating your use of ad hominem arguments. Dems on the move (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing of the sort here, so thank you for yet more baseless claims to detract from your crumbling argument. Nothing else to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but after reading this I felt I had to chime in, since the communication doesn't seem to be working. The statements that could seem ad hominem are things like "Dems on the move" has a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BLP1E and don't toss out the fancy Latin when you don't know what it actually means, ok?... Luminifer (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note from closing admin I admit, this was a tough call to make. The woman has gotten coverage out the wazoo--but virtually all of it relates to her role in the birther cause. The article was basically a stub, with little biographical information to speak of. If there had been more biographical information, or she'd done something that would confer inherent notability, it would have been enough to save the article. Blueboy96 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Mine was one of the many keep comments on this AfD, but AfD is not a vote and the close was well within the normal discretion of a closing admin. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn- I think the BLP1E arguments were pretty well refuted in the afd, with the point being made that this woman has made every effort to stay in the public spotlight, appearing on Colbert, Stewart, NPR and the like, which shows that she's not trying to remain low profile, which the policy states as a guide to who deserves an article and who doesn't. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - just another BLP1E birther with no notability on her own behalf. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep per the rough consensus at the AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion No particular notability beyond that covered in the redirect, very weak sources. PhGustaf (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as the original nominator. Ray^Talk 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Was the proper call. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. The WP:BLP1E standard is notability only for a single event; it would be incorrect to expand that, per Tarc's argument to delete an article for a person who lacks "notability beyond a single issue". JamesMLane t c 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  Trying to draw a distinction between "one event" and "one issue" seems to be some mighty fine hair-splitting that doesn't seem to be supported by the policy cited. IMO "event" sufficiently covers single-issue advocacy as well. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're free to hold the opinion that the policy, which refers to "event" throughout, should be amended to cover "event or issue". I was going by what it actually says now. I don't see this as at all a hair-splitting distinction. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry was one event. Abolitionism was an issue. Similarly, there are some lawyers who gain public notice because of their involvement in a single highly publicized case. Taitz isn't in that category. JamesMLane t c 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be amended; it already reads that way. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently, in WP:BLP1E, the word "event" occurs in the section heading and six more times in the text. The word "issue" has zero occurrences. So, no, it does not already read the way you want it to read. JamesMLane t c 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - there is a massive amount of media coverage of this woman - and there is no indication that this is going to cease. Much of this, I imagine, will eventually be placed in the article once proper references are found. It would not make sense to list her media appearances under the "birther" movement, as they are somewhat related but there is not an absolutely correlation - unless we want to list all media appearances of all people involved in the birther movement. This woman is notable for (a) being involved in the birther movement, and (b) being so incredibly visible regarding her involvement in it. I believe that these actually count as separate things. Luminifer (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. The overwhelming majority of !voters supported keeping the article. A clear majority of the !voters who discussed policy in some detail supported keeping the article. Relevant language in WP:BLP1E can easily and reasonably be read as supporting keeping the article: If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. To the extent this standard was addressed in the deletion discussion, the consensus clearly supported keeping the article under this policy provision. BLP1E also indicates that one important factor in determining whether a separate article is justified is "how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." When the closing administrator, by his/her own admission, discounted the substantial "coverage out the wazoo" the article subject has received in the news media, he/she failed to properly apply the provisions of BLP1E. When an AFD discussion turns on the interpretation of Wikipedia policy, as it did here, the closing administrator should determine whether a consensus was reached through reasonable discussion of the policy involved. Here, no one disputes that both sides held reasonable positions on interpreting the policy. In a situation like this, the closing administrator has no business substituting his/her own interpretation of policy for the expressed consensus interpretation, so long as that interpretation is reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, textbook case of BLP1E, the efforts to try to pad the article into an actual bio support this conclusion. --Stormie (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as supported by BLP1E. — Kralizec! (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion (restore revision history), but uphold redirection. The closer has conflated two separate questions: "Does the subject currently warrant a dedicated article?" and "Should said article be deleted?"
  He has stated that his decision stems from the failure to expand the article beyond a stub before the discussion's closure. Since when do we delete articles because they're too short? That can be a valid reason to merge any useful content into another article and redirect the title there, and Blueboy96's closure calls for such a redirect. I don't object to that portion, but why was the deletion warranted? Blueboy96 has acknowledged above that "this was a tough call," so why not leave the revision history in place (thereby allowing editors to expand the former article's content if/when this becomes feasible)?
  Blueboy96 is quite correct that an AfD debate is not a majority vote, but the burden lies on those advocating deletion. There might not be consensus to retain a dedicated article for Orly Taitz at this juncture, but there clearly wasn't consensus to delete it outright (thereby preventing editors from addressing the issues said to justify the redirection).
  Therefore, my position is that the redirect should remain in place for the time being, but the article's revision history should be restored along with its talk page (an appropriate venue for any future discussion on whether to revive the dedicated article). —David Levy 11:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Taitz has gained and kept attention only because of her lawsuit on Birther issues. Beyond that, she hasn't done anything notable. The main reason for the attention, I think, is she presented a somewhat novel arguement, that Obama couldn't order soldier's deployed if he wasn't the President. Somewhat new, different from the other (failed lawsuits), so the Birthers lept on her train. Everything notable she's done is related to this issue, making the redirect the correct action here. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• From WP:BIO : Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.. You said "beyond that", she hasn't done anything notable, but WP:BIO doesn't state that you have to have done two notable things. If she is notable enough to be interviewed so much on television, she is likely notable enough to have a WP:BIO this is particularly relevant as people will see her on TV, look her up, and want to read about her on wikipedia. Luminifer (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why it helps to keep reading the rest of a policy page...which is where one would encounter the "People notable only for one event" section...rather than just citing the lead. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that the lead should tell someone everything they need to know, excepting clarifications. In this case, then, I would suggest that someone (you?) amend the lead to be clearer. Luminifer (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is true, however this particular confusion is why most of the endorse folks have referred to the specific WP:BLP1E rather than the general WP:BIO as being the primary guiding policy. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point, although even there, Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. -- this person has NOT maintained a low-profile individual. (I stand by my point that she has two form of notability - (a) association with the movement and (b) how she is capitalizing on it) Luminifer (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The real arbiter of 1E policy is a simple question; absent Taitz's involvement with the Birther brigade, would she be worthy of a Wikipedia article? Tarc (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's an oversimplification of 1E. (Note the John Hinckley, Jr. example.)

It is explicitly stated that a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile." Are you suggesting that Ms. Taitz has remained low-profile?

I also object to the use of the term "event" to mean "issue." The two are not the same. —David Levy 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't an oversimplification. Even the "simple test" can have the occasional exception. The Hinckley case is one of these, as the event (assassination) it itself such a critial, noteworthy issue. Birthergate does not rise to that standard, though. As far as Taitz and low-profile go though, yes, she is. In terms of reliably sourced media, Taitz is no higher or lower on the totem pole as Berg or any of the others. In unreliable fringe media, sure, she is some kinda of twisted folk hero. But non-RS is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Hinckley isn't an "exception." He's an example of a high-profile individual whose notability stemmed entirely from one event. Whether Taitz is low-profile is debatable (and we'll have to agree to disagree), but regardless, it's incorrect to state that the "single event" criterion is the sole determining factor.

And again, Taitz is known primarily for her involvement in a single issue, not a single event.

However, note that I don't seek to undo the redirection. I merely contest the revision history's deletion. (See my comments above.) —David Levy 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. If there's nothing to say about her apart from her penchant for self-publicity and precious little actual biographical sourcing, then BLP1E clearly applies. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse -- but restore edit history, and merge edit history from Orly taitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore), the previous deletion. (See David Levy comments above.) If s/he arises to greater notability, then the previous edits should be available to turn this into an article.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. While I leaned moderately toward keeping this article, and I would support re-creation if Taitz achieved notability beyond 1E, there was nothing wrong with this closure. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you see a reason to delete and redirect instead of simply redirecting?

Also, given Blueboy96's acknowledgment that "this was a tough call," why was it appropriate to close the debate after less than four days (which he incorrectly referred to as "five days") instead of the usual duration of "at least seven days"? —David Levy 14:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And it says "Certification of Live Birth" instead of "Birth Certificate". Nitpicks all. I might have preferred to keep the article history (i.e. simple redirect rather than delete+redirect), but there may have been a concern that a loon magnet issue like this would be prone to nuisance re-creation. I don't feel strongly about the 5/7 day wait, and overturning the AfD closure over this seems WP:BURO. This closure is valid, even if I would have done it differently. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I was addressing your statement that "there was nothing wrong with this closure." It's fine to endorse it, but it'd hardly be nitpicking to point out that it occurred more than three days sooner than usual (particularly given the closer's acknowledgment that it was "a tough call").

Secondly, if the revision history were retained, the redirect could be protected to prevent reviving the article without consensus.

Thirdly, as you've compared my position with that of the birthers, I'd like to state for the record that I personally regard the latter as absurd. This, of course, has absolutely no bearing on Orly Taitz's notability (or lack thereof). —David Levy 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ambar Siar.jpg

File:Ambar Siar.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The image was deleted for reasons best known to the administrator. I had also put a license tag which stated that the picture was more than 100 years old and qualifies to be posted on wikipedia. I hail from the very same place which Malik Ambar, whose image I posted, erected during 16th century AD. I therefore request the editors to qualify this image and let me post the picture. Nefirious (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For background, it was deleted as a copy of File:Malik Ambar.jpg, which was deleted here in June as a derivative work of File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• While the question DRV is asked normally to consider is whether deletion process was properly followed, it does appear that this image is a copy of an image which is PD due to age. I therefore recommend it be restored without any negative inference towards the previous deletions. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir, the image was painted by an unknown artist more than 100 years before. I believe that the image will not affect anyone nor does anyone hold any copyright of the image. Please comment everyone. Thanks for recommending it to be restored. Nefirious (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I will not object if a proper and valid Citation comes with it, allong with proper licencing. The licencing of THIS image is unclear and disputed. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [Disclosure: I have objected on these grounds prior ]
  • I would guess we are talking about File:Malik Amb.jpg now that User:Nefirious re-uploaded the same picture, again, even though the Cited Source (Shaikh Chand’s book ‘ Malik Ambar’) has no GBooks match, nor did the Author. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If Google doesn't have reference to it, doesn't mean that book does not exist. I believe there are thousands such books written in regional language that have no reference on Google. Like before, I had also attached a snapshot of the newspaper in which the picture was printed. So I suggest my fellow colleagues to reinstate the image that serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject in the article and is by all means authentic. Nefirious (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I just came across this book which has the reference of Sheikh Chand's book. [Malik Ambar]. Please have a look at the link and you will find a mention of Sheikh Chand's book that was published in the year 1921 and then republished in 1931. Nefirious (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• But the problem with the copyright is that, as you yourself have stated..."The photo was originally in black and white. It has been colored in a photo studio"[1]. That means, it is then no longer a Black and white photograph, It is an Artists interpretation done to an Unknown degree, at an Unknown time, then printed in a Newspaper that does not say where the Original Image or Altered Image was acquired from or what it is we are actually being shown. (We cant really tell if its not the Art Department's sketch made a week before the Newspaper Article was written or wholly now the work of the Artists that interpreted it.) Add to that, the fact that "There are no multiple sources that describe Malik Ambar as the same in every picture."[2] means that we have to be sure of the picture, or have none, for this historical figure. Myself and others have been attempting to explain this viewpoint for sometime now. Taking the picture from a newspaper then adding a Cite from a book would not adhere to WP:V as they did not come from the same source. If we could find a unaltered photograph with a reliable Citable source with with it, there would be no problem, but this Image's copyright has been meddled with by to many people already, for it to be Reliable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are just complicating matters my dear friend. The picture was colored in a photo studio by people in the city who adore him and see him as a hero that included myself. The photo has only been colored and is no artists interpretation and imagination. Sheikh Chand is the only author to have written a book exclusively on Malik Ambar and is considered by all researchers as a very authentic book. What you say is your own interpretation about changes in the image. If we start looking at these things so minutely then no image will ever be posted on wikipedia. And yes there are other pictures of Malik Ambar that descirbe him as darker, but that does not mean that the picture in Shaikh Chand's book or the Article with Malik Ambar's picture in TOI is fake. Times of India is a national newspaper and no one can challenge its authenticity. And by the way, the newspaper snapshot was just added for reference. I have the original copy of the image as well as the colored photographs with me. The TOI team was in search of an appropriate picture and came across this picture and published the same in the newspaper. And it has not been meddled by too many people, you are just exagerrating. The bottom line is that the image is more than 100 years old and qualifies to be posted on wikipedia. The sources have been cited and authenticity maintained. 05:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC) And if by any chance the image does not qualify under pd old then it can qualify under public domain, since the picture has been drawn by an unknown artist and has been manually colored by an artist. Nefirious (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Can you scan or take a picture of ... "the picture in Shaikh Chand's book" ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Since we share the same privileges on Wikipedia, I will do so if the council demands. I aint answerable to one individual. Sorry if you think this is rude but I would need to scan the picture and for doing so I would need to go out somewhere since I dont have a scanner. If the council members insist on doing so, I'll do so. But I dont think there is an urgent need for me to produce the outlined picture of Malik Ambar, don't think any editor ever had to produce any evidence apart from citations and references. Nefirious (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry. I think you misunderstand me. I dont mean to ask for "produce any evidence". That picture is the picture that I would not object to you using in the Article. That picture could meet the Cites and Copyrights. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• If thats the case then I will scan and upload the original version. Nefirious (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)

Wall of text collapsed

Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) [edit] Triumph of Truth Hi NawlinWiki this in Penright here, I really do not understand why you deleted my article Triumph of Truth (Who's Watching The Watchers?) on the basis that it is an add trying to sell something, This does not make any sense when the subject matter of the article is about a series of books that were written in the 1980's and early 1990's and have been destroyed by the state library and the state police. This is a history article about a series of books that do not exist any more, but a story that has to go on public record in the public interest, it is not selling anything, please explain what you think the article is trying to sell. I do expect a proper detailed reason and explanation for you decision to instantly delete this article without even a general discussion on the talk page as to why you think it should not be allowed to exist on Wikipedia. I have had of experience in courts over the years where one has to explain the reason why certain actions are taken, even a high court judge has to do this when he makes a judgement, so you are acting as judge, jury and executioner for this article Triumph of Truth (Who's Watching The Watchers?) and you have tried the case overseen the hearing as the judge, found the article guilty acting as the jury and then instantly executed al the life out of the article with a final death sentence, no appeals, no discussions, and no detailed reason as to why you think this article is guilty of trying to sell something, when the subject matter is clearly history and not talking about any good, service product that is available for sale today, as the Western Australian State Library destroyed their copies of these books and the Queensland Police have stolen the original manuscripts and refuse to hand them back. NawlinWiki, I look forward to your detailed answer. Kindest regards PenrightPenright (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[edit] Pain Hertz Hi - I noticed you speedy deleted this article without even tagging it for speedy deletion first. I was in the midst of adding some more information to it when you did this - it hasn't even been 10 minutes since I created it. How did you even delete it without tagging it first? Please reinstate it so we can see if anyone else agrees that it should not be speedy deleted. As per Wikipedia:New pages patrol, Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author..Also In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable (whether it actually is notable is a subject for an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion). Consider using a Notability tag instead of a speedy delete tag. Also, an article should not be tagged for speedy deletion if it's possible that it might be improved into an article which should be kept. Pay attention to the guideline "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." It is not a rule of Wikipedia that an article has to be perfect the instant it's first posted; that's why we have edits.Please reinstate the page so that this can be discussed. Luminifer (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC) In summary, articles that are not suited for wikipedia are not to be speedy deleted, but are to be tagged with AfD. Unsuitable pages. Pages about individuals, places, or things which generally don't merit an encyclopedia entry should be tagged with PROD or, if someone could reasonably defend its existence (or if a prod has been added and removed already), listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. What exactly qualifies as encyclopedic is debatable, though, so it's best to err on the side of caution and not delete or nominate for deletion too hastily. Luminifer (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hi - I don't believe I have to establish notability to not have it speedily deleted, according to all of the policies I have read. You can tag is with AfD if you like, but it should not have been speedy deleted. Wikipedia policy clearly states that a page should not be speedy deleted just because it is not up to par - some pages require the cumulative efforts of many wikipedians to establish significant notability. Can you show me where in the speedy deletion policy it says that possibly unnotability is a valid sole criterion for speedy deletion? Also, can you explain why it was never even first tagged for speedy deletion? Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Specifically, you cited A7 as the reason for deletion, but A7 explicitly states it is weaker than notablity: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article I created did do that. Luminifer (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also, please follow the suggestion at the top of my talk page and respond here rather than on my talk page.. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Per speedy delete category a7, an article can be speedily deleted if it doesn't *assert* notability. As I said, I don't see how your article asserted notability per WP:MUSIC. "6 albums" doesn't assert notability, because lots of nonnotable bands have 6 self-produced albums. Finally, administrators are not required to tag articles for speedy deletion if they believe that the article meets the speedy-delete criteria -- they can just go ahead and delete. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers that are Watching new Wiki Edits and articles? Copy to of letter to Editor of the News York TimesDear Sir, I still have not had a reply yet from NawlinWiki an administrator on Wikipedia to my question. I am surprised that there is no rely, when he or she was so quick to remove the article, like the Kitten was sitting there watching minute my minute "Daily Kitten is watching"ready to pounce on the Triumph of Truth, because the series of books Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) are apparently:(1)not allowed to be a book in a public Library, even though they were purchased with public money for the Western Australian JS Battye Library, by a very senior experienced Western Australian library historian, that felt that as he said to me, when he decided to order a number of copies of the seven volumes of Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) when I asked him why is he originally ordered them he said, "it was in the public interests of the people of Western Australia to have the alternative view of the legal, political, public trustee, police, courts, prosecution, business world on public record", (2) not allowed to even he stored in garage of a private home, so when the police come to the house at 6 Earl Court looking for documents that relate to real estate transactions in Tallai, Queensland, and they find the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)the police immediately decide that these books are illegal books and no one should have them in their house as they may corrupt the minds of those that read them, and thus have to be removed immediately and destroyed, before anyone else reads the mind corrupting information that is written in these books (3) Not allowed to be mentioned in any normal mainstream newspaper, encyclopaedia etc, so the author has to go to his grave without anyone ever knowing about these books, so that when he dies the world will never know that these books ever existed, as the world is not allowed to know that these books have ever existed, just like the JS Battye Library had to completely destroy these books and even take all copies of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), purchased by the JS Battye LibraryLink title, off the library computer of them , and the police had to remove and destroy the original manuscripts of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) when they were discovered by the police stored in the garage of a private home , this all being done without any official court order and/or official authority an/or official rule of any law in Australia that these people were using to remove and destroy the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), so that, other that the author who sold them to the Library, and a few close associates, no one would ever know that they ever existed in the JS Battye Library and in fact in the world. It seems that The Triumph of TruthLink title that Sir Edgar Bertram Mackennal, the great grand father of the author of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) , Stephen Carew-Reid, tried to create in the 1980's is still having a hard time existing, however in the laws of the universe, The Truth Will Always Triumph, one way or another. Kindest regards, M Moore (code name Penright)Penright (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Triumph of Truth Not For Sale This is the short reply from NawinWiki 10 minutes after the first reply was sent requesting a full explanation as to why the article on the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?) was tagged for speedy deletion and to explain the speedy deletion in the light of "Wikipedia policy which clearly states that a page should not be speedy deleted, just because it is not up to par - some pages require the cumulative efforts of many wikipedians to establish significant notability. Can you show me where in the speedy deletion policy it says that possibly unnotability is a valid sole criterion for speedy deletion?" (See: Pain Hertz's similar complaint above regarding the speedy deletion of his article) NawinWiki's short reply:"You're trying to publicize your own books. Moreover, those books don't appear to have any independent notability per WP:N and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)". Please respond in much more detailed and sensible argument and valid reasons to the two detailed replies to you, as to why you, with such hast and vigour, tagged for speedy deletion the article of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?). Please be kind enough to also provide your reply on your own talk page (This page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki&action=edit) and please also explain why, when I was editing the original article in the SandBox section, the drafts that I worked hard on, started, after a few hours of working on the page, to disappear every 12 seconds, and the Wikipedia Policy on top of the SandBox page states that the edits on the SandBox pages will be removed every 12 hours, not every 12 seconds. Then I go back to the Sandbox page to have another try, to create the article again, and there is a message typed by yourself, being the admin editor on duty at the time checking new edits and new articles being drafted, in the edit section, that "the edits on this page will be removed every 12 seconds". The meaning behind this message was clear. No matter what I was to write in the SandBox edit page and/or in an actual article on a main Wikipedia page, you and those who you are fronting for have already decided to speadily delete the edit and/or article. The message is clear that the subject matter that involves the now destroyed the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?), that are not for sale, as they simply do not exist anymore, but their original existence can be easily verified by speaking to the main political historian that was in charge of the ordering of the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?) at the JS Battye Library, also by search in all the references and links that have been provided suporting the article, as well as reading the article on the Old Boys Melbourne High Schol page that has been on the internet for over 12 year, (Please See: Google search on Stephen Carew-Reid MHSOBA 1907-2009 :: Luncheon Club - 8 July Stephen Carew-Reid - arguing with the Judiciary ... Instead his father John Hastings Carew-Reid talked him into comming back to Perth WA and taking over the. www.mhsoba.asn.au/default.asp?pg=luncheon&spg... - Cached - Similar - )at http://www.mhsoba.asn.au/default.asp?pg=luncheon&spg=display&articleid=2266 " Stephen Carew-Reid - arguing with the Judiciary -Stephen went to Christ Church Grammer School until 1962 when his family moved to Melbourne. There he attended Brighton Grammer School from 1963 to 1969. In 1970 he attended Melbourne High School and received a Commonwealth Scholarship to attend Melbourne University to complete a Law Degree. Instead his father John Hastings Carew-Reid talked him into comming back to Perth WA and taking over the family stone business and completing a Bachelor of Commerce Degree during the years 1971-75. Stephen received 75% of the family company worth about $8,000 in compensation to his other two brothers and one sister receiving about $20,000 to start their adult life with. Stephen built this company up with wise real estate investments from $8,000 in value to over $500,000 by the end of the 1970's. Stephen wanted to develop these properties himself and make a further $1 million development profit by building town houses and offices on the land. During his university days he rented all the rooms out in the houses to pay for the mortgages, had two children and was one of the 8 selected out of over 2,000 entries to fly to Melbourne to be part of the Johny Young Song Festival. His father took control of the company back from Stephen by issuing an extra 5,000 shares now it was very valuable and stopped Stephen from developing the house himself and in fact sold the house to a property developer who made $1 million profit. His father died in 1986 and left the WA Public Trustee as executor of this will. Stephen ended up sueing the Public Trustee for mishandling the etate and ended up representing himself for over a decade in the WA Courts against the Public Trustee who used their power of City Hall against him. Stephen has ended up having his practical expereince in the courts before he did any formal training and has now written a series of books about the fight he has had with the WA Public Trustee and the WA Government called, The Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching the Watchers). The books have been named after his late Great Grand Father, Sir Edgar Bertram McKennal who was well known bronze sculpter in the earty 1900's in Melbourne who went on to becoming quite famous in Europe. Before he left Melbourne to further his art in Europe, he won a competition sponcered by well knbwon business men to produce a life size sculpter to be placed outside the Art Gallery. He called his entry "The Triumph of Truth". He only ever did a small clay version for the entry because the prise money never came forward form the businessmen to finance him to complete the life size sculpter.His Great Grand Father was searching for the Truth in his art and now Stephen is searching for the truth in his books to carry on his Great Grand Father's work in a different form." as clearly explained in the article, so you you to tag the article on the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who S Watching The Watchers?) for speedy deletion, on the basis of your false and wrongful claim that I am promoting my own books, in the Wikipedia article, makes no sense at all, when they are not my books and in any event as the article says they have been destroyed, first by the JS Battye on instructions of the Western Australian Crown Law Department without any court order and/or rule of law authority, and then the original manuscripts have been taken and destroyed by the Queensland police in Australia, again without any court order and/or Australian Rule Of Law to support such actions. This article could never be accused of being about myslef and/or anyone else using Wikipedia to promote the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), because, as set out in the article, they simply do not exist any more. The article is just a history article about the history of events that took place in Western Australia in the late 1980's and early 1990's, being over 15 years ago, and it is clearly in the public interest that this piece of important Western Australian History go on permanent public record in Wikipedia, for the world to read for generations to come, so that the truth is there to be read, not hidden from everyone for ever. That is the main purpose, Jimmy Wales, who has been historically cited as being the co-founder of Wikipedia, had for the founding of Wikipedia, for the truth about all subjects to be on public record for ever. Kindest Regards M.Moore (Code Penright)Penright (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Best regards M.Moore (Code Penright)Penright (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) You wrote "it is clearly in the public interest that this piece of important Western Australian History go on permanent public record in Wikipedia, for the world to read for generations to come, so that the truth is there to be read, not hidden from everyone for ever." That's your opinion. We don't go by an article author's opinion -- we go by reliable independent sources. If you don't have any, post your information on your own website, not here. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hi NawlinWiki, great to hear your personal opinion of he subject matter of the article about the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) and that you have agreed with me finally that the article is not attempting to sell anything, as the article is just a history article about some of the interesting history of Western Australia, just like you must have some interesting history in New Orleans, USA where you were born and still live. I may not think that the history that you may chose to write about about events, people, places etc that relate to New Orleans, USA in Wikipedia are interesting and noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia, however that would be only my personal opinion, not necessary the opinion of the hundreds and thousands of other editors that contribute to Wikipedia around the world. In this case you have now come out of the cupboard and admitted the real real reason why you have made it your personal mission place a tag for speedy deletion to the article about the seven volumes of Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), is that you do not like the subject matter and may consider that the subject matter isn't noteworthy enough, and you have chose to attack the 30 references and sources I quoted in the article which include the following: References: 1. James Battye Library, Western Australia Editions of the Australian Weekend News, on microfilm at the James Battye Library 2. Editions of the Australian Weekend News, compliments of the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group and International News Limited 3. Seven volumes of books knows as Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers? written by Stephen Carew-Reid and published by the Australian Weekend News 4. Website:www.INLNews.com Website: www.USAWeeklyNews.com 5. Website: www.whois watchingthewatchers.com 6. Australian Weekend News websites: www,awn.bz, www.australianweekendnews.com, www.newscorp.net 7. Interviews with Stephen Carew-Reid and other staff at the Australian Weekend News, USA Weekly News and INL News Limited and International News Limited 8. Historical records of the old Daily-Weekend News published in Perth, Western Australia 9. Historical records of the West Australian Newspaper, published in Perth Western Australia and held on micro Film at the James Battye Library in Perth Western Australia. 10. Interviews with staff at the James Battye Library in Perth Western Australia 11. Interviews with the residents and owner of 6 Earl Court Tallai, 12. Queensland Queensland Police records held in Queensland, Australia 13. Statements from Queensland Senior Detectives Gregory Stormont and Barry Zerner Letters 14. Records, receipts and correspodence from the Queensland Police Service in Australia 15. Local Court of Western Australia records 16. Magistrate Court of Western Australia records 17. District Court of Western Australia records 18. Supreme Court of Western Australia records 19. Federal court of Australia records 20. High Court of Australia records 21. Public Trustee of Western Australia records 22. Director of Public Prosecution records 23. Western Australian Titles Office at Midland records 24. Western Australian Police Service records 25. Mosman Park Shire council records 26. Interviews with Lloyd Carew-Reid 27. Interview with Wayne Carew-Reid 28. Interviews with Pippen Drysdale 29. Interviews with Paul Rigby 30. Historical records of the Sunday Times Newspaper published in Perth Western Australia. I do challenge you over your claim that the article is not note worthy enough non of these sources and reference are not reliable enough to make this article be be included in Wikipedia and I ask you you discuss this with say 10,000 other Wikipedian editors in the Wikipedian community, and take a vote on it and get a conscientious of opinion from them all. If you can not get a general agreement from these 10,000 editors in the Wikipedian community, then take a vote and I suppose the majority vote wins the day, one way or another. I hereby did attached a copy of the article to show the 10,000 other wikipedian editors you are going toi approach to take a vote on the Wikipedean future or non future of the subject matter that is is the article entitled Triumph of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?), that you have tagged for speedy deletion by yourself that was indeed very speedily deleted in a few seconds: Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) however that section of my edit on this page was tagged for speedy deletion, and speedily delected within the usuaol 12 second time frame that is allowed for any that I put up on wikipedia under the tile suject matter Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Kindest regards M.Moore ( Wikipedia Code Penright)Penright (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Penright (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to make the least bit of sense of this huge, unformatted wall of text, but from a combination of this and a perusal of NawlinWiki's talk page, I'm tentatively of the view that this content should be userfied to Penright in order to give him time to work on the article and make it ready for publication on Wikipedia.

  Before it is actually moved to the mainspace, I think Penright should bring the finished article in its verifiable, reliably-sourced state back to DRV, where we can examine it and make sure it's appropriate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi this is Penright here, I think I undertsand yiu you are saying that I can have some time to work on the article under a pace called'' userfied'' an dthen when I feel the article is ready for going into the main space, i will be allowed ot bring the article back to DVR where yu can examine it in detail to make sure it's appropriate and/or provide me guidelines and/or suggestions where and how I have to improve the article for being appropriate for being moved into the main space. Many Thanks Penright.Penright (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, this is a discussion, and my answer is my opinion. Others will also have their say, and when we have reached rough consensus on what to do, the consensus will be implemented.

  "Userfied" means the article is moved to a separate part of the wikipedia space where you can work on it at your leisure before it is "published" into the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • To put Marshall's words into non-Wikipedia jargon, please put your article at User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?). Hope this is useful to you. Dems on the move (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion of the article in the form it was in, and also suggest userfication with support and review before the article is moved into the main space. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  Withdrawing support for userfication. The user is making personal attacks against other editors in his text. Not acceptable in main space or user space. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 12:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse and further recommend that User:Penright visits the help desk or Editor Assistance (but not both!) to request input and assistance as s/he edits that userpage. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and support userfication. →javért ^stargaze 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)