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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:00, 4 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

Image:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, if he becomes the leader of the opposition, he'll be so booked by shadow cabinet meetings, national publications and stations, etc., that he won't have time for the little people. When was the last time you saw Bill Graham at an event? Yes, he's interim, but so what. Can we not just undelete, and then discuss this on Monday? -- Zanimum 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People will still be able to take photos, he'll still make "public" appearances, taking a photo doesn't have to be posed or one on one. The image was originally deleted over a month ago, we've had over a month to replace it and no one has bothered, I can't see what difference a couple of days without an image would make. --pgk 07:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you eliminate (a) all the events that are $100 a plate, (b) only for the registered media, (c) only for Liberal members, you're not left with a lot. The only opportunity to see Bob publicly, for free, was in Toronto at 8 am on a Thursday, and on a Friday in Ottawa from 3 to 5 pm, at the Slovenian Canadian Club of Calgary, and in Cupar, Saskatchewan, which is in the middle of no where. He's trying to attract a very limited bunch of people, the Liberal delegates. Thus he has no need to be freely accessible to folks like us. -- Zanimum 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll still be appearing in places the public can attend and take photos, again it doesn't need to be a posed shot or a one on one. Why you eliminate (a) and (c) I'm not sure anyway, are we saying the being a Liberal member and being able to take a photo for use on wikipedia are mututally exclusive? The policy on replaceable fair use says nothign about replacement images needing to be taken for zero cost. --pgk 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list is to prove that almost all of the events on his tour of Canada were inaccessible to Canadian Wikipedians. They were members-only or expensive. Do you see anyone that's willing to spend $100 dollars for one photo? -- Zanimum 14:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again the criteria says nothing about cost or willingness of any given individual to meet that cost. The person will still be appearing in public and will still be able to have his photo taken, and indeed you can still persue getting an "official" image released under an appropriate license. I assume this individual doesn't get out of cars with a blanket over their head as they get shuffled into buildings with blacked out windows with individuals searched to remove photographic equipment, they aren't a recluse. Your list doesn't "prove" anything regarding unavailability of a photo or ability to take one. As to the general principle is someone willing to pay $100 to get a given photo, if not then I guess the photo simply isn't that important to the article. --pgk 15:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone took a picture of a unicorn, but kept it under copyright, you'd say we couldn't use it? Because "oh, we can just send a photographer to Antartica to wander around for five months to take a free alternative". Correct? -- Zanimum 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well putting aside that unicorns don't actually exist, then I can't see what this has to do with anything. Bob Rae isn't a recluse hiding out in Antarctica, he is a public figure, he appears in public regularly, I would guess he probably even has a fairly public diary. Go to flickr and people have photos of him, (they aren't licensing them under a suitable license) they undoubtdly have managed to take photos of him, why those people can manage to but you reckon no one else in the world will be able to is beyond me. If your unicorn appeared in public regularly, then yes it would fail replaceable fair use, if it cost $100 to get the picture, it would still fail replaceable fair use. For sports personalities in such situations we say people can go to a game and take a photo, they can indeed cost $100 or more to do. --pgk 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emudrumline

My page for Eastside Fury Percussion Ensemble was deleted. I removed the requested materials by User:Lucky 6.9 in regards to instructor bio. The remaining content is specifically for providing additional information to a subcategory of the Winter Gurad International page. See Independent World Percussion. Please review deletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emudrumline (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion. The page you have never existed, and the deletion of the page GRberry thinks you meant was fine. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse non-existence of Emudrumline. Deletion review can not bring back a page that never existed. Presumably you are looking for some other page. GRBerry 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I think the user actually wants a review of the deletion of Eastside Fury Percussion Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been deleted by the named admin twice. GRBerry 15:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, even looking at Eastside Fury Percussion Ensemble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it only has 39 Ghits. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal khashan

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. Stammer 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --pgk 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion. His notability was more than demonstrated in the AfD, so I'm not sure where this closure comes from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously improperly closed deletion vote/discussion. Undelete Hilal Khashan and do not relist. - Mike Rosoft 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn mainly because the closing admin didn't seem to address the sources given. ColourBurst 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. GRBerry 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weakly endorse deletion~~(Relist, see below) , per WP:V:
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 an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 "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 Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is supporting you for ArbCom, so I guess he already knows where you stand on this. Stammer 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Stammer 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The community consensus was obvious here and it wasn't for delete. At the very least, it should go back for more debate. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Newyorkbrad 20:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Stammer 21:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I surmise anti-Muslim bias" is neither relevant, contextual nor accurate. Chris cheese whine 13:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
overtturn deletion there was no explanation for this and good reasons to keep please help prevent this bias Yuckfoo 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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|(talk) 03:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Metropolitan90 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article had already been moved to the correct title, with the uncapitalised version being a reditect. --pgk 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Can't find any trace of the article, and it seems like with the amount of discussion, it should be re-reviewed. Endless blue 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn & do not relist Arguments that the article, as written, is not 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. --Ssbohio 12:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Chris cheese whine 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DUMBA

File:CRIIRADmap.gif

Has been deleted on the claims that one Wikipedia could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could have copied the information from that map (the coordinates of the dots) and incorporated that same information into a PD map of France. It looks to me like this deletion was proper. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Risembool Rangers

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]
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]

Charlie the Unicorn

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]

Just Dial Communications

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was providing information about corporation's history. Please review the talk page for the deleted version.

Third-Party Source: Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Registration: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/tlcmlsts/default.aspx?indx=35&lang=e (page 12)

Endorse deletion - Please see the corporation guidelines for the notability requirements and also the information on conflicts of interest. Articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone. Shell ^babelfish 19:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the "source" you gave was a directory listing, a violation of WP:NOT. ColourBurst 04:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesilla Valley Mall

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]

Freedom Imaging Systems

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

Warrant officer (Star Trek)

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: [4]

--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]

Cheese house

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]

Ice Age (band)

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 – [5]. 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 [6] [7] 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 – [8]. 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 – [9] and [10] (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]

Revision as of 02:34, 4 December 2006 edit Chriscf (talk \| contribs) 5,611 edits →‎[[DUMBA]]: WP:SNOW endorsement close ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:00, 4 December 2006 edit undo Jasonfb (talk \| contribs) 155 edits →‎[[DUMBA]] Next edit →
Line 201:		Line 201:

	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]]). [[User:Chriscf\|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor\|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&action=edit&section=new whine]</small> 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)		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]]). [[User:Chriscf\|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor\|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&action=edit&section=new whine]</small> 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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