Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 7

< September 6	Deletion review archives: 2007 September	September 8 >

7 September 2007

List of Airline Holding Companies – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted despite consensus for keep. No consensus should have defaulted to keep. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. AfD is not a vote. Decisions are based on the quality of the discussion points as well as the number of votes. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Vegaswikian 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add that there was no support on WikiProject Airlines to keep. Vegaswikian 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I point out that the activity at WikiProject Airlines is sporadic at best, and can hardly be considered a basis for allerged concensus/non-concensus. Plenty of other proposals has been floated in that wikiproject with nally a response, and were eventually implemented anyway.--Huaiwei 15:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I point out that a lack of activity does not mean that consensus has not been built, but it is interesting to note that most activity on the project as of late has to do with articles and sections of articles which undermine the project, including one which I am currently in dispute with you with, that being Singapore Airlines. --Russavia 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is Delete per nom. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, delete per nom would imply that the editor concurs with all points made by the nomination and endorse that point of view. That's a useful sanity check and suggests that editors agree that the nominator is making a sensible argument. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can also cloak a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position, giving it an air of authority. Dhaluza 11:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "This article is appropriate, informative, and not in violation of any policy" should not be confused with "this article appeals to my own idiosyncratic taste." Usually when an editor supports keeping an article they could be said to "like" the article in the sense that they support its existence -- this does not render the substantive arguments they make void. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - But what substantive arguments did they make? A blanket assertion that the article is not in violation of any policy is no assertion, and it's also demonstrably wrong--the article's use of fair-use images violates our policies, as other editors in this dicussion have already noted. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't delete articles for having one alleged copyright violation, especially when the fair use is so obvious that any lawyer would find the discussion laughable. The appropriate action would have been to slap on the logo template. Another acceptable action would have been to list the image under IfD, though frankly that's just a waste of time for easily fixed images. Deleting lengthy articles for trivial copyvios really flies in the face of our whole deletion policy, not to mention common sense. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure what this "one alleged copyright violation" refers to; I think the greater issue is the gigantic fair-use violation going on; regardless of the outcome, the airline logos need to go. Then there's the original research, the improper synthesis... Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, no compelling reason presented the delete the article; it's not redundant to the category (differently organized); there's not a serious original research problem that I can see as this information on the whole is available in public statements, and compiling it advances no new ideas or theories; the fair use problem, while needing to be addressed, is best solved by deleting the images -- SVG versions of copyrighted logos, being extremely high resolution, obviously fall afoul of our fair use requirements. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Consensus was not in favor of deletion, no particularly strong deletion arguments, no reason given in the closure for closing contra consensus. — xDanielx ^T/_C 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Eusebeus 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Many parts of the article was original research, I for one have never heard of a basic airline holding company, nor a complex airline holding company, and some of the airline holding companies were not holding companies but actually only companies. --Russavia 06:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Keep said it was useful, delete said it was covered in other articles. However, the delete argument seem to be that the idea of Holding Companies and Airlines was covered in other articles rather than the list material being covered in other articles. The delete arguments were not support by enough evidence. Rough consensus was not to delete. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the unusual reason that the closing admin was right the first time! He said: The result was delete. Initially closed as "no consensus". After discussion with another admin who was about to close the article simultaneously, close has been amended to "delete" There was in fact no consensus--further discussion of question is needed--the discussion here on the merits is fuller than at the AfD, 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. Close advocates had the better arguments per policy, and policy represents a vastly larger consensus than the few people who turn up to vote WP:ILIKEIT. The article contained great dollops of OR and nothing much else that was not generic per holding company. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Guy hits the nail on the head. Let me also paraphrase something I said earlier: "consensus" presupposes that editors have knowledge of policy but simply disagree over whether the article is problematic or not. "No consensus" is not an outcome based on numbers. Also, why wasn't MastCell informed of this discussion? Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be too easy! Probably for the same reason that (in spite of your excellent example) no one else bothered to follow Step 1 in the DRV algorithm - "courteously invite the closing admin to take a second look." Thanks for letting me know it was going on. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closing admins apparently had a separate side discussion that superseded the comments in the formal deletion discussion. Deletion requires at least a rough consensus of editors participating in the discussion, not a rough consensus of administrators closing it. This is unfortunately a case of admins deciding the outcome on their own, rather than trying to divine it from the comments. There is no way to divine a rough consensus for delete that I can see from the discussion. If the admins really believed it should be deleted for other reasons, this AfD should have been closed as no consensus, and the article relisted for those reasons so they could be evaluated by the community, and possibly addressed by the editors. This type of action sets a bad example, and should not be repeated in the future, so it must be overturned, regardless of whether the article itself should be kept or not. Dhaluza 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, administrators should count votes and ignore policy? Mackensen (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, the meaning is the administrators should judge on the basis of policy as presented in the discussion. If they think their point of view was not presented adequately in the discussion, they should join the discussion and let someone else close. In particular they should never judge on the basis of private representations from another WPedian--AfD is a public process, and deciding on the basis of private arguments could be considered a violation of trust. (I don't think it was here, just a mistake.) The proper response to such a representation would have been to continue the discussion, comment according to one's own view (which was apparently non-consensus), and ask the other guy to comment also. And then let someone else close. Private off-wiki discussions of an article are limited to exceptional situations truly involving confidentiality. my apologies on this, i did indeed make a mistake and altogether over-reacted. DGG (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) DGG (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What private arguments? MastCell and I talked on his talk page, for heaven's sake! Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG made a mistake assuming the side conversation was off-wiki, but that does not affect his central point. AfD is a public discussion, and all discussion related to the deletion should take place in that forum. It is at best questionable practice to have a substantive side discussion on a talk page that affects the outcome of the AfD. An admin who has strong opinions on a article should comment on the AfD and leave it for someone else to close. Even if your intentions were lilly white, your actions cannot be distinguished from gaming the system. Avoiding creating an impression of impropriety is just as important as avoiding impropriety itself. Dhaluza 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption that I have strong opinions on the article is erroneous. I have strong opinions on policy, but that's an entirely separate issue. I particularly object to the allegation that I "gamed the system," and your use of "were," which implies very strongly that you don't believe I was acting in good faith. There's nothing wrong with administrators discussing the closure of an AfD, especially when they edit-conflicted on the close. You know, we usually get criticized for acting "unilaterally," now we get criticized for discussing. Administrators are permitted to seek and receive counsel from other users as they see fit. Mackensen (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comments were too strong; I meant to focus on the evidence of the actions, not speculate on the intent. I still think the record of admin actions related to the close are questionable at best, even if there was no ill intent. It is important for people to believe the process is fair, and it is important for admins to be very careful not to allow even the appearance of overreaching. Dhaluza 11:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that's what deletion review is for, to act as a check on the unilateral nature of AfD closes. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the article based on points raised in the discussion page. Issues of a single OR image, incompletion, and the existance of errors are not themselves compelling reasons to delete just about anything, for then, this project would probably never have a chance to grow.--Huaiwei 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, endorse my closure. I initially closed this as "no consensus" - I felt the delete arguments were stronger (there were quite a few "but it's useful!" arguments among the keepers), but didn't rise to the level of "if in doubt, don't delete." Mackensen questioned that close - he was about to close it as delete. Given that he's an experienced editor, I reviewed his comments and the AfD. As I was leaning toward delete in the first place, given the added weight of Mackensen's review of the discussion I chose to amend the close to "delete". I should make it crystal clear, given some of the above comments, that there was no off-wiki discussion here. What you see on my talk page is the sum total of it. Mackensen was offering his opinion on how he'd interpret the debate. I took his opinion into consideration, and it was enough to change mine. If the decision is to overturn on the basis that I originally closed it as "no consensus", that's fine, but I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this was decided off-wiki somehow. Yes, I suppose I'm guilty of being induced to take a second look by the opinion of admins more experienced than I... but there was no off-wiki deliberation about this. MastCell ^Talk 04:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC) you are right, and I apologize to both of you for interpreting it otherwiseDGG (talk)[reply]
- No problem - thanks for being willing to strike the comment. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, even if we overlook the serious nonfree image problems, the delete arguments are the better ones here. AfD, still and yet, is not a vote, its name was specifically changed from "Votes for Deletion" to get that very point across. It is a policy-based discussion, and the delete side had the better policy-based arguments. There is also nothing wrong with MastCell taking a second look at his decision when it was questioned, we all should be willing to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete; even if you count the WP:ILIKEIT !votes, there certainly is no concensus to keep! The arguments for delete were based on policy, whereas the keeps were... well, not so based on policy. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is backwards; there must be a rough consensus to delete, and the policy is to default to keep without one. Also, only the nom and one delete vote cited policy (two if you count the "per nom") and the policies they cited are WP:V and WP:OR which are fixable with refs, which surely exist for this. Dhaluza 11:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, AFD is not a headcount, and I Like It is not a valid argument. >Radiant< 08:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD is not a vote; the close was proper in light of the comments and policies/guidelines. Carlossuarez46 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is about process and policy and the deletes had the best reasoned arguments. The only argument to keep can be boiled down to ILIKEIT. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cork Street – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice to an expanded, reliably-sourced recreation that establishes notability. Userfication available upon request. – Xoloz 00:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the decision by the admin who deleted this page to be arbitrary: there was certainly no consensus to delete the page. All individuals asking for it to be kept did indeed state within their reasoning that the article needed to be expanded, however they did not say that if reliable sources were not found the article should be deleted. I believe the article should be undeleted, and at least given a chance to be expanded. If it is not improved within a certain time span, then by all means re-list for deletion. Roleplayer 22:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own deletion. Despite being on AfD for 6 days, not one single source was brought forward to verify notability. The article had existed since June 5, 2006 without proper sourcing. There was nothing arbitrary about this. I applied pertinent policies to my decision. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - There wasn't anything close to consensus on deleting this article. Very notable street in the art world with many, many art galleries on it [1]. There was even an historical book about the art dealing world called Duchess of Cork Street: The Autobiography of an Art Dealer, entitled such because Cork Street is long considered a center of art. --Oakshade 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you err when you suggest that consensus overrides policy. Please note this from WP:DGFA. "Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions." This article offered no verification. If it's out there one would think it could have been added. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability in the art world was and is verifiable (I even added a couple of external examples of that here). This was a classic case of "since I don't see sources, they must not exist, therefore I will ignore consensus". --Oakshade 23:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem. I looked at the article saw none of the sources you now mention, saw the article was a year old and had been on AfD for almost a week and I deleted. You come now with a source which is great. Perhaps the closer will suggest it be userfied and you can add the sources and move it back into the mainspace. Sources are absolutely critical and this closure was within appropriate admin discretion. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my part overturn as per the reasons I gave in the nomination. -- Roleplayer 23:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Jody's closing rationale. Policy consensus trumps individual article commentary, especially when poor grounds are advanced for retention and notability and verifiability concerns remain unaddressed. Eusebeus 00:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So even though there is verifiability of notability, as shown here, this is a case of "They had their chance, therefore it's non-verifiable and non-notable"? --Oakshade 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I'm a sucker for these "London Street" articles. However, at AfD, notability is about the likelihood that there is enought WP:RS material available to develop the topic into a Wikipedia article. Only one Keep position mentioned WP:RS material and it seems unlikely that the article would be improved with WP:RS material since the remaining keep positions only mentioned importance/fame. There is plenty of WP:RS material, so feel free to recreat the article with WP:RS material. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No notability was established except for WP:ILIKEITs Corpx 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the WP:ILIKEITs? --Oakshade 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn — A search for "Cork Street" on Wikipedia reveals artists as notable as Francis Bacon, and others including Francis Cotes, Hugo Grenville, Heinz Henghes, Eric Meadus, Clive Wilkins, Roland Penrose, Patrick Procktor, Clive Wilkins, also galleries including the Karsten Schubert Gallery and Victoria Miro Gallery, not to mention others associated with the street such as Brownlow Bertie, 5th Duke of Ancaster and Kesteven. Does all this count for nothing and have no relevance in the Wikipedia deletion process? Seemingly not, but common sense would say that it should. I would say this was a poor call in the circumstances and a {{notability}} tag would have been much more appropriate than deletion. It appears that a sizable number of the Wikipedia community are either set against art and just plain unknowledgeable about it. Either way, it is a sad state of affairs. For information, the same thing almost happened to Dover Street, another notable London street with many art galleries. Just my twopennyworth. — Jonathan Bowen 23:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the re-creation of an article on Cork Street, if it provide sources about the historical significance of it - sure it can be possible to put up a good article, however, I will endorsed the deletion because the deleted version was a near G7 candidate. --JForget 02:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice against the creation of a future article with sufficient citations to demonstrate clear notability, and suggest the old version be userfied if someone wants to tackle the task. Unsourced assertions don't carry much weight at AfD, so there was no procedural error but a new userspace version that clearly and verifiably addresses all the issues raised at an AfD is the simplest, quickest, easiest and most non-controversial way to get an AfD decision overturned. Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.As the closing administrator I have no problem userfying the page, in fact I said as much above 3 or 4 days ago. However to date, no one has offered to do the rewrite. It seems as if people want the article to stay in its present form with no improvement. Note that the article is almost a year old and was on AfD for almost a week and not one single improvement was made. Userfication is tailor made for these kind of articles but you can't usefy if no one wants to do the work. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of German Americans – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Overturn - Deletion was done despite no consensus for deletion. Majority of voters wanted to keep the page. If this page be deleted, then all pages similar be deleted. (African Americans, French Americans, Irish Americans, etc.) -- Alexander lau 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The list was encyclopedic, well sourced, and of immense value to our users. Closing admin was not neutral (his own user page states that his aim is to delete hundreds of thousands of "extraneous" articles), and there was clearly no consensus for deletion; in fact, the plurality of contributors stated emphatically that this article should be kept, as we have kept our other articles about Americans of particular national origins. "Keep" voters' well reasoned rationales were dismissed out of hand, again showing a lack of neutrality on the part of the closing admin. Finally the fact that the text was deleted entirely rather than merging into the parent article shows very bad faith on the part of the deleting admin--very un-Wikipedian. However, everyone makes mistakes and we will give this editor (for whom I previously recommended a block for this biased close) the benefit of the doubt; I will withdraw my recommendation of an extended block for this poor behavior if the deleting admin restores this article immediately, as per consensus. Badagnani 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immense value? Really? I'd want a {{cite}} for that... Guy (Help!) 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no-consensus. Much as I support these articles, I don't think consensus had been reached. I do not think however that the admin is deserves blame for it, not does it in any way whatever reflect bad faith. He gave a full explanation of why he closed as he did. He did not however consider the merits of no consensus. However, he was wrong in not taking that option. DGG (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse & Keep Deleted A very well reasoned close that is part of the encouraging trend to close deletion debates with respect to larger policy consensus, and not simply the accumulation of ILIKEIT-style votes in individual instances. I also warmly agree with Alexander lau that similar pages should also be brought to AfD and deleted using the same rationale. Eusebeus 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "AFD is not a vote", is becoming the newest wikioxymoron for overriding consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because AFD is not a vote Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and because the consensus that underlies policy is vastly larger and stronger than the number of editors that participates in even the more contentious AfD's. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion AFDs are not a vote and those who come here to discuss whether to overturn should focus on the arguments not the numbers: we're not looking at hanging chads here. Guy said it very well above. Here, the arguments to delete were far stronger than those to keep consistent with the policies of WP. The closing admin got it absolutely right. Carlossuarez46 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus, unless the same policies are applied to all lists of this type, and all these articles are deleted. Leuko 02:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The delete indiscriminate was strong and the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. I think what made the list indiscriminate was the lack of prose. For example, under the section Actors & actresses, it would have been nice to see WP:RS material explaining what did the listed individuals being German Americans contribute to their being Actors & actresses. Using prose would have cut that section of the list down since it is unlikely that WP:RS material discussed all those listed Actors & actresses in the context of how their being German Americans contribute to their participation in their chosen profession. If each of the sections had such prose, the list would have been more refine and more focused on the topic - the notable relationship between being a German American and chosen profession. No objection to recreating a German American list more focused on the relationship between being German American and how that notably impacted the listed person's life. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Its not WP:ALLORNOTHING. I think the closer's rationale was valid Corpx 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Aside from WP:ALLORNOTHING, several other such lists have indeed been deleted in the past several weeks, and I'm sure that is only the beginning. An article being sourced does not make it a valid intersection (a List of American males could be perfectly sourced, but likewise fairly random and unmanageable). Mad Jack 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; the statement made by the closing admin says it all. —An gr 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn due to a clear lack of consensus. While the closer may have eloquently given a reason to close as delete, this reasoning was contrary to our actual deletion policy, which clearly says, "... pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept ..." It is not the job of the closing administrator to decide who made the better arguments, but to determine whether consensus exists from the discussion. Yes it's true that AfD is not a vote, but it is a discussion which attempts to determine consensus, and dismissing reasonable arguments made by establish editors simply because, in the admininstrator's opinion, they are "unconvincing" does not help determine consensus. The closer's argument that "Arguments of 'it is useful' are, by now, almost universally discounted," is disturbing, as the WP:USEFUL essay itself says that "There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful'." It is clear from the discussion that a "non-trivial number of people" consider this list useful. The argument that there is a larger policy-based consensus here is also unconvincing to me; as policy (in most cases) is supposed to be created by consensus, except perhaps in cases where legal issues are involved (copyright, libel, etc.); the only policy reason given to delete was it allegedly being a "list of loosely associated of topics", a policy for which there is demonstrably precious little consensus for determining what that phrase is actually supposed to prohibit. To quote Justice Potter Stewart, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [article] involved in this case is not that." Finally, those who are endorsing the deletion by claiming the "keep" arguments were WP:ILIKEIT are clearly misrepresenting the actual discussion; it could be equivalently claimed that all the "delete" arguments were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DHowell 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The International Society for Professional Innovation Management – deletion speedy endorsed: copyvio and no argument to keep – Resurgent insurgent 12:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia and so a page stating the background and purpose of a not-for-profit association should be justified and not against the rules of Wikipedia!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibitran (talk • contribs)

Note This was added on 9/7 to the 9/4 day log, so I'm moving it here so people will see it. --W.marsh 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, no arguments given whatsoever as to how the deletion was improper. Corvus cornix 17:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion speedy copyvio. wouldn't have been encyclopedic anyway. Carlossuarez46 17:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion' and I'm off to check for other spam from this single-purpose account. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, possibly speedy close due to complete and utter lack of any reasoning whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion no rationale given for why the deletion was incorrect. --Haemo 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scott Reed – Deletion endorsed, without prejudice against a reliably-sourced recreation, as usual. – Xoloz 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleter claims that I wrote the bio, but I didn't. Also he questioned the validity of the references that were cited, apparently suggesting that I made it up? He also claims that the new bio is not significantly different from the previous one that was deleted, although the new one includes new publishing credits, also verifiable. I've worked professionally in comics for a number of years, for Marvel, Dark Horse and currently Image (including mainstream media recognition for my webcomics work). How is this not notable? Websbestcomics 14:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Nothing here to overturn a unanimous AfD vote. Comics artist whose work is mostly self-published (lulu.com will publish anything submitted to them, that's how they operate). Also a pretty clear WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh. This is silly. I've worked for Marvel, Dark Horse and currently Image Comics. Marvel and Image alone are considered in the top 3 list of comics publishers. Technically my work for these publishers far outweighs the self-published works (I've inked well over a thousand pages of comic art for Malibu/Marvel, Dark Horse and various smaller publishers, and self-published something under 300 pages of comic art). Your assertion that most of my work is self-published is incorrect. I guess I have some things to learn about wiki, sorry if my edits to the bio were in conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Websbestcomics (talk • contribs) 15:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, it happens all the time. The issue here is independent reliable sources for the article; without them we can't keep to our policies. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search on the comics.org database shows one Marvel inking credit (shared with two other inkers) for a story in issue two of the Independence Day movie adaptation. The remainder is minor indie stuff such as Malibu and something called "Greater Mercury Comics". So while I guess you can technically claim that you worked for Marvel, what you're not telling us is that it was in an extremely limited capacity and really has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of surprising that the AFD participants didn't track down more sources. I found lots in the first couple of pages of his Google results, including confirmation that he's writing a miniseries for Image, right on their front page. Having said that, I can't see the deleted article to tell its quality, so allow recreation and suggest that whoever rewrites it make sure some sources are included this time. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion I also checked out the first couple of pages of googling "Scott Reed" like Tony did, but I came up without any reliable sources for this Scott Reed, however there seems to be several other notable people of that name with reliable sources: a Republican politico apparently a campaign manager for Bob Dole's presidential campaign (1st hit, 4th hit, and later a NYTimes blurb) and a provost at Oregon State University. And many, like the present Scott Reed, who don't: a pastor (2nd hit but not RS), a self-help author (3rd hit but not RS) with a book ranked at #1,045,053 in sales at Amazon.com, a movie sound guy (imdb hit was 5th hit) and at 6th (not RS) our guy here. Indeed, I couldn't find any RSes to the present Scott Reed, there are a few others that aren't RSes, just like the ones to the guitarist, pianist, real estate agent, chemistry prof at Portland State, a software type, another self-described "Unix geek", a surgeon, and many others no more notable that the present guy and with no more RSes than he either. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I used '"Scott Reed" Marvel' or something, and came up with about 1700 hits. Unfortunately, the word "marvel" seems to be used a lot in the news industry these days, so Google News was mostly unhelpful. It looked like there was confirmation that he writes and illustrates for the Big 3 in comics, anyhow, which is why I suggested a rewrite to allow for sources to be presented. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all writers and/or illustrators for the Big 3 in comics are notable, any more than all writers and/or illustrators (or engineers, what-have-you) working for the Big 3 US auto makers, or CPA workging for the Big 5 in accounting, and WP:RSes still are lacking for this guy. Carlossuarez46 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable; my question is whether someone who's the writer of a miniseries for one of the Big 3 has reached that level of notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closer interpreted the discussion correctly. I couldn't find any WP:RS material for the topic. There is the Scott Reed, Oregon teacher who licked students' wounds,[2] but that is not American illustrator/comic book artist Scott Reed. Scott, have you been interviewed by an alternative newspaper or has one every written a story about you? If so, that may be WP:RS material that could be used in a Wikipedia article on you.-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been interviewed numerous times in newspapers and online.[3], [4]. I was interviewed in 'How To Draw Digital & Sell Digital Cartoons' a book by Leo Hartas ISBN 1-904705-28-6, The Portsmouth Daily Times, The Lander Journal and probably a couple others I've forgotten about. I could scan and send those to you if further verification is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Websbestcomics (talk • contribs) 14:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is not what is needed since assume good faith means I believe you. : ) Also, I believe you since you seem sincere. However, the article needs to be written from reliable source material that is independent of Scott Reed. Many times, those reliable sources can be found republished on the official website. Websbestcomics.com does not seem to have an in-the-news section. You also might want to add a Press-inquiries section. As for the Wikipedia article, let the reliable source material determine what gets into the article. If some third party didn't write about it, it shouldn't be in the article. Formatting also is important. Take a look at some of my articles at User:Jreferee/Contributions. The article that was deleted read like a resume. Even if the Scott Reed article remains deleted after this DRV, it still may be added to Wikipedia if reliable source material is used. You can work on a draft article in your user space and when its ready, you can come back to DRV and request to recreate the Scott Reed article using the draft article in your user space. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Borer Data Systems – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still in process of editing the page before it was first deleted - this article was to be categorised under Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies

UNDELETE_REASON Missingspace 12:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've fixed the title above and also note that you've meanwhile recreated the article. --Tikiwont 13:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning toward undelete/keep: I think it looks notable enough for an article, but need better sourcing to tell one way or the other. Of the 3 linked references, one is 404 not found, one gives a VBScript error (for me anyway) and one requires some sort of scary-looking trial account to view. Do we have any press references? Magazines, newspapers, books, that sort of thing? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in history seems to be copied from [5]. --W.marsh 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, both Borer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Missingspace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are single-purpose accounts, the article reads as a directory entry at best and an advertisement at worst, there are under 120 unique Google hits, I am buying access control systems in the UK right now and I have not come across their name in the proposals and shortlists put before me, and the supposed references are, as noted, either trivial, missing in action, or not independent. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the current article shows nothing which indicates what makes this company notable. Corvus cornix 17:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, nn company and spam to boot. The recreation of the material while on deletion review is disruptive behavior, and demonstrates an utter disregard for the process that the editor has invoked. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's normal behaviour for confused newbies; we should be gentle, respectful and firm in deleting this directory entry. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment is right, learning how to submit a article is a confusing process on Wikipedia - I am not sure that I am doing this deletion review correctly. The cached version was the first edition but this was changed in the revised edition, so it had simply a company box and a timeframe, which was still in the early stages and being worked upon. The company was first setup in 1975, in Switzerland and was the first access control company in Europe to offer a complete system, so it is a established company in the UK, not a recent one. The problem is the speed of deletion, anything I am trying to edit/add gets removed straightaway. Would the best process be to add a stub like on this page e.g Nildram, from the United Kingdom company stubs page United_Kingdom_company_stubs?? Is there a way that the page can be edit offline, reviewed by the administrators and then be considered whether or not to be published on Wiki? -- Missingspace (talk · contribs · logs) 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can create User:Missingspace/Borer Data Systems and develop a draft article in your user space. Once the draft article is footnoted and ready for review, you can return to DRV and request that Borer Data Systems be recreated using your draft article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Article - I have added a draft article for undeletion review here User:Missingspace/Borer Data Systems as mentioned in the last comment - please review the draft and let me know of any suggestions Missingspace 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey – Deletion overturned, with consent of the closing admin. Relisted at AfD. – Xoloz 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion was done despite no consensus for deletion. One editor was discounted because he was a newbie, but has been active ever since. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfD here. Heather 11:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deleters never explained why this was listcruft... overall their arguments ranged from weak to insulting. Also, someone isn't an "invalid voter" just for being new... they're invalid if their argument is invalid, or if they are a probable sockpuppet or (usually) meatpuppet. --W.marsh 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A lot of 'strong' and divided opinions, but few actual arguments hardly amount to consensus and the new user even tried to point out why the list is useful out of Wiki project space.--Tikiwont 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by AfD closer, I don't remember this AfD, but I certainly closed it at a time when yes, I did discount !votes from new users. I don't know who that new person was in the AfD, nor am I going to go through the effort of finding out who that new person was because the fact that the person is fully active now doesn't necessarily mean that I made a bad decision then... That being said, AfDs are always open to review, and since we know this new person is active now, does that mean that the AfD, if it were held now, would be reviewed any differently? Perhaps. I still stand by my decision back then, since I didn't know how to look into the future, but if you want to look at it now, that's fine. I suggest relisting the AfD. Doesn't matter to me what happens to this article, as I have no vested interest in it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn. I don't fault the closer for closing the discussion as delete, since the arguments on the 'keep' side were equally weak, ranging from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to WP:USEFUL. That said, the 'delete' side never really explained why this list was unencyclopedic (assertion != demonstration). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Although I don't particularly like pointless lists of this type, and would have !voted to Delete it had I participated in the AfD, I feel this was an improper closure. The close should have been No consensus. Just because someone is a comparatively new user does not make them an "invalid voter"; AfD is not a strict numerical vote, and valid arguments should not be discounted, even if they're given by someone with little experience. Walton^One 19:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Consensus falls to deletion. Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus 21:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist on AFD and I recommend that the people who commented above to change their reason to relist as well. It should have been closed as no consensus (nither the keeps or deletes had a good reason in the debate), but the issue is that the AFD was over a year ago, and should be tried again in WP:AFD, remember WP:CCC Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - Nobody proved why these are notable through coverage from reliable sources + notability is NOT inherited Corpx 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per nom; a list of cemeteries in Somerset County would be notable and useful to the people of Somerset County. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (By the way, usefulness should be a stronger argument than Wikipedia users generally take it to be. If Wikipedia weren't useful, would it be as big as it is? I doubt it.) — Rickyrab | Talk 15:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness isn't a particularly strong argument because it is almost entirely subjective. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zeitgeist the Movie – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Movie in question is clearly notable. Consensus of votes was incorrectly tabulated as "delete" when delete votes were in minority. Movie is mentioned in published newspapers. Movie is reviewed on thousands of movie review sites. Said movie is also available in pressed DVD form, hence not comparable to non-notable youtube videos. Lastly, many Wikipedia articles exist for far less notable viral videos. --Thoric 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. It's not a vote, and the closing rationale, Self-published internet movie with no assertion of notability whatsoever, no reliable sources, no mainstream media attention, etc, accurately reflects issues directly related to core policy which were not addressed by keep advocates. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive either. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was under the impression that AfD was a voting process (at least it used to be). Regardless, this movie has started to receive mainstream media attention. Perhaps it didn't at the time of deletion, but it has now: TheStranger (Seattle Newspaper) (See The Stranger (newspaper)) and The Globe and Mail (Toronto Newspaper) (See The Globe and Mail -- this is a very mainstream newspaper, btw.). There are literally thousands of movie reviews to be found online about this movie, (a Google search for '"zeitgeist movie" review' returns over 12,000 results). Taking a quick look on Facebook reveals that there are literally dozens of groups specifically about this movie, the largest of which has over 2,400 members. A Google search for "zeitgeist the movie" (in quotes) returns over 150,000 hits. I know that Google searches alone are not usable for notability, but the two newspaper article citations in combination with a heavy web-presence (not to mention the mass of support on the AfD page) makes this movie a clearly notable subject. It is also not only an "internet movie", as the DVD is available for purchase. --Thoric 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Oh, lovely, it looks like we have another "I'm gonna try to DRV the same article every two weeks until I get my own way" situation here (see also August 17 DRV). In any case, yes, nominator, there are other articles on non-notable "viral" internet videos... and they get deleted and speedy-deleted in droves every single day. See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. We hear that all the time, and it's certainly no reason to overturn a perfectly valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was not involved with any previous DRV votes or nominations. I just came across this last night, and after reviewing the AfD results, and doing some research of my own, it was clear to me that proper procedures were not followed, and the AfD did not reflect a consensus for deletion. This AfD was not valid. There are reliable sources for notability. --Thoric 15:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The AFD was an SPA and meatpuppet zoo (obviously someone posted something on a messageboard someplace that caused the "mass of support" the nominator mentions above), and the closer managed to pick out the simple fact that there were no valid reliable sources available at the time to prove any semblance of notability for the movie. If you feel there's something available now, then I'm sure a rewrite of the article in userspace would be a reasonable thing for reviewers to consider; however, as for the article that was the subject of the AFD, endorse deletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when do articles have to be created in user space? There are reliable sources citing the sudden popularity of this film -- I posted them above. The actions here are very suspicious. Why was this article removed so quickly, and then protected from recreation? --Thoric 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pretty standard to suggest a rewrite in userspace when dealing with a new version of a salted article, actually; it allows the person who wishes to recreate the article to prove that indeed there are good sources. (By the way, the mention in The Stranger appears to be on the trivial side, with just two paragraphs talking about this movie.) But as you seem to be insinuating this is part of the Great Zeitgeist Cover-Up, let me once again point out that the version of the article that existed previously had zero reliable sources, and thus failed notability and verifiability at the time. The AFD was a meatfest of monumental proportions, and the closer did a good job of sorting through the shite to find a decision. It was protected because it's been recreated repeatedly. No conspiracy, just policy. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this nn movie article has been created and recreated so many times under several different titles including Zeitgeist, The Movie that I speedied a while ago that one can only conclude that the purpose is pure spam. Carlossuarez46 17:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your POV. The fact is that there is notability here. Hence a new (proper) article should be allowed. --Thoric 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; The deletion debate (the debacle of sock/meatpuppetry it was, notwithstanding) was interpreted correctly. No reliable sources which establish any notability for the subject. The continual reviewing of this deletion is getting tiresome very, very quickly. --Haemo 19:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tiresome? I provided a reliable source -- a mainstream newspaper with a weekly circulation of over two million. How can you ignore this? Here it is again: [6] --Thoric 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - this is a difficult call for me. Research indicates that this film is certainly on the fringe of notability. But the provided sources, unfortunately, aren't very good at the moment (the globeandmail link doesn't work without paid service). Thus I say userfy until the author has time to come up with better sources - which probably exist somewhere. If someone feels that, after page has been unuserfied, it lacks proper sources, it can be brought back to AFD. Thoric probably could have waited a bit longer on the sources. But in the end, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, Wikipedia does have a lot of articles on movies, and I do believe that this satfies the spirit of the notability criteria. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't notice the globeandmail link did that... if you use Google News to search for that article, you will be able to read it for free if referring from Google News. --Thoric 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion More votes is not consensus. Optionally userfy to allow the editor(s) to find reliable sources. —O (说 • 喝) 21:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find myself considerably surprised that anyone could really consider this movie "not notable." It's receiving 35,000+ views daily on Google Video, placing it constantly in the Top 5...and without being pornographic. This is a great deal more than mainstream movies achieve and, whilst they're not free to view, this one has an advertising budget around zero. Surely this alone makes it notable. In conjunction, I would suggest that, given one of the principle contentions of the movie itself - namely that the mass media is under a degree of control vastly greater than that recognised by the public - there should sensibly be some form of case made here regarding mass media recognition. As regards the subject matter, there are at least adequate references citable for the sections of the movie dealing with Religion and Finance. There have been many published works dealing with the specifics, many of which are cited on the Zeitgeist Movie website. Regarding 911, it's a contentious subject but there are plenty of sources of information for the points raised in the film. I think it is more likely here that the subject matter of the movie is simply too emotionally-charged for the editors of Wikipedia to accurately review. They cannot follow a straight line because too many feelings are raised. I would be very grateful to anyone who can demonstrate to me that I am incorrect here. Otherwise, it seems to me that every day this situation with Wikipedia and Zeitgeist continues this site stands to lose more credibility. Amira227 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amira227 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And your reliable sources are…? —O (说 • 喝) 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Good article – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template originally put the GA icon in the top corner of articles. It is believed that this template should be restored for the following reasons that were discussed at the WP:GA talkpage.

Since this template was deleted the GA process has improved considerably as there is more involvement and reviews are more detailed.
The GA process is accepted across the Wikipedia as a part of the article assessment process.
The GA process has many editors at each step of the process

A discussion to add the tag to articles the meet current GA standards after being re-reviewed is being discussed. The changes here give enough reason to recreate this template. Feel free to discuss your thoughts. Tarret^talk 00:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, {{GA-article}} exists, is it not the same thing? T Rex | talk 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{GA-article}} originally made an inline icon, but was modified in August and is not currently in use in article space. Based on the previous TFD and DRVs, the modification of GA-article is a recreation of deleted content and could be deleted under CSD G4. Gimmetrow 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, there is already a substantially identical template in existence. Whether or not that template is being used is another matter, but not one for DRV. ugen64 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ages old deletion. At least wait until consensus has been properly reached to restore the icon on Wikipedia talk:Good articles, which it doesn't look like to me. Circeus 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse again, same reasons as last time. Self-referential, arbitrariness of GA status (equivalent to a popularity contest), talk page template is adequate to the task. You want a star, get your article up to FA status. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse to restore. GA improves an article to midway status. Criterion for GA are applied to bring it to some standard, rather than no standard. Its like a halfway mark to FA. GA articles are much better than non-GA articles. If you want a star, get it to FA standard, smacks of exclusivity to me. Many articles cant come to FA because of lack of information etc so GA serves as a badge of recognition of quality. The user deserves to know if something is 'better' than the rest. A talk-page template is not visible to him and hence cannot be considered adequate for the requirement of visibility. Dont deny the many 'good' just because of a few 'best' articles. AshLin 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like midway status, I reckon. I know a lot of editors who simply don't do the GA thing, however good an article is, because, unlike FA, GA status is subjective and held in low esteem by large numbers of individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, as there was nothing procedurally wrong about it, but allow recreation. While several of the previous DRVs (with the exception of the third one, which was a "I don't know why it was deleted, so undelete it" kind of DRV) indicate several editors' concerns about reliability of the GA process, that is something that is way outside the purview of the deletion process. The "popularity contest" concerns that triggered the original deletion of the template were voiced a year and a half ago, and things have changed significantly, which makes me pretty uncomfortable applying CSD G4 to this template. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Good articles (and featured articles for that matter) aren't really checked for neutrality, completeness, or accuracy to any greater degree than other articles. We shouldn't be advertising the idea that these articles are superior, since the reading population is highly likely to misinterpret what we mean by that. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until this matter is settled in WP:GA and Sweeps is over. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. "Good articles", by our standards, don't need to be all that good, they just need to meet minimum levels of acceptability. And there's not even a standardized process; whether or not an article becomes GA depends on who happens to review it. Giving a special symbol for meeting a standard low, arbitrary, and inconsistent is misleading. -Amarkov moo! 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because "good article" is an arbitrary criterion, per Amarkov. >Radiant< 08:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion We have the talk page templates for this. FAs fall into a special category. Orderinchaos 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion — I have huge problems with the "Good articles" system and at the very least it should not be mucking up namespace zero. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ben Heine – Restored per undelete request of prod delete – Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Record of deletion: 02:06, September 5, 2007 Fram (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ben Heine" ‎ (Expired prod. Fails WP:BIO) I would like to know why this page was deleted and I request of a review it. ---Wolfe 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion log listed why: someone tagged the page with a WP:PROD notice, claiming that the article failed our guidelines at WP:BIO. Since no one contested the notice, the article was deleted. As a contested prod, this means an admin will likely un-delete the article and send it to WP:AFD for discussion. -- 68.156.149.62 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list - There is a Ben Heine who works as a waiter on the Western Railway Museum's Wildflower Express, but that is all I could find on a Ben Heine. The recent blog post Wikipedia joins Daily Kos ion the 'Censor Game' sees the deletion as part of the Zionist movement. I'm somewhat hesitant to send this to AfD given the recent blog post. However, the article listed seven different sources and AfD seems a better place to decide if they are blogs or WP:RS. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Israel: Criticism not Allowed mentions Wikipedia and Benjamin Heine. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a contested PROD then it belongs on AfD. It's not a question of endorsing or overturning; that's how WP:PROD works. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can ask that a PROD be restored, without a deletion review or other formal proceeeding. Then, if anyone still want to delete it, Afd is the place. t\here seems to be no such evidence here, so it can simply be speedy restored. It can still go thereafter to Afd. DGG (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod contains the procedure:

"Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any administrator can be asked to do this (or perform this action themselves), or a request may be made at Deletion Review, but such undeleted articles are able to be speedily deleted or nominated for deletion under the usual rules, should they meet those more stringent criteria."

-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, not because I would mind an AfD too much, but because it would be a waste of time. As already mentioned, and as it is obvious from the article, we have no reliable sources that can establish his notability. It's nothing but blogs. -- Karl Meier 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restored now, as is custom with a contested prod deletion. No problem with anyone taking this to AfD (additional comments: he seems to have published at least one cartoon in La Libre Belgique, as far as I could see, and there are probably some COI / autobio problems). And I'm glad that I don't only have an anti-US bias (as said in another AfD comment otday), but also am a part of the Zionist movement. I wonder what other characteristics my online personality will develop in the next weeks! Fram 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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