Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3

3 March 2011

The IDPPPA (S.3728)

The IDPPPA (S.3728) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi!

Would you consider reactivating the IDPPPA wiki page? It really is a more important bill than the wiki page made it out to be. 1. It is a hot topic of discussion/debate and articles are written and published about it everyday. The IDPPPA is a huge issue in the fashion industry and the field of intellectual property law and it is important to have a neutral open source of information about it. 2. It made substantial changes from previous drafts of the bill and there needs to be a source to discuss those changes. 3. It made it further in the process than any previous bill and therefore has importance. 4. It had support from long time opponents (unlike the previous versions). 5. The next bill introduced is likely to be substantially similar to the language of the IDPPPA so it is important to have a point of reference.

The previous text of this article was pretty bare and did not reflect its true relevance. I can update the page substnatially to reflect its importance and relevancy and add needed citations.

Thank you.

Mark Boerebach

Mark_Boerebach (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

New third party Sources 1 - Interview with Radio Station 2UE ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0t4Cnh1bwo&feature=channel_video_title ) New Source 2 - Interview on 2GB ( http://www.2prfm.com/sources/water-logged-throat.mp3 ) New Source 3 - 2CH Bob Rogers Interview with Russ Kilbey (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqF-desNBMs&feature=channel_video_title ) Whitewater111 (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I wish to request assistance with an article relating to myself. It is a tricky situation, as I cannot have any involvement in editing or working it, as it would be a conflict of interest for me to do so. At the time the articles were deleted, I had little understanding of the wikipedia community, and thus had a meltdown from Asperger's. Now a few months have past, and that the heat has gone from the situation, I am politely asking if another admin could review the deletion of the discussion, as the delete/keep pole was even stevens, however most probably due to some misunderstanding, they might of been some tension involved. I don't know as there were definitely plenty of sources to support the article. So I leave it up to those who know more about wikipedia then I, and hope a neutral review could be considered. Thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: the userfied article can be seen at User:Nuujinn/Mark Boerebach. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Old Man Murray

Old Man Murray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Taking into account that DR is not AFD#2, and after letting the closing admin review this ([1]), I still believe outright deletion was the wrong solution here. I understand Lifebaka's point about no deep coverage, but during the AFD and since, more reliable sources identifying the site (OMM for short) have come about. If any anything, this should have closed "Redirect" to Erik Wolpaw, a notable individual for this site among other things (eg not a WP:BLP1E issue) where the content from the OMM article could have been placed. But even moreso, a "Keep" with no hestitation after some time to reevaluate another AFD would have been better. MASEM (t) 02:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - Consensus of the competent opinion-givers (fevered SPAs get little attention IMO) was clear. All of us grizzled net veterans have our old, favorite niches of the internet that we wax fondly over, but the sad truth is that some nerd culture just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. Not getting your favorite thing into the Wikipedia is just like being kicked out of American Idol; just because someone doesn't think you aren't good enough, doesn't mean you actually aren't. You just ain't good enough here. Move on. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone would consider this non-notable and thus not worthy of an article. But I am arguing that in this situation, the info about site can be on Erik's page, and that it is a likely search term, and thus outright deletion is improper. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "All of us grizzled net veterans have our old, favorite niches of the internet that we wax fondly over, but the sad truth is that some nerd culture just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia." -- how about the ones that have been referenced many times by video game journalists?

• Comment - I do not post this comment with much hope, as it seems that the thoughts of those who have not been a persistent presence on the site are often categorized as "SPAs" or "meatpuppets;" however, I am of the opinion that the nominating admin has displayed sufficient evidence to suggest a conflict of interest in his capacity as a WP admin. Not only was the admin responsible for the removal of both the Portal of Evil and the Old Man Murry pages, he also removed links to the OMM page present on the pages of two people (Erik Wolpaw and Mark Laidlaw) who were heavily involved in both. This is certainly circumstantial evidence, but I find it odd that one admin took it upon himself to remove all of these related elements in a short span of time. A recent post of his on the Caltrops board (http://www.caltrops.com/pointy.php?action=viewPost&pid=136915) and the linked tweet suggest that the admin has a personal agenda and is willing to act on that agenda in retaliation.

I have no investment in the pages I mentioned, nor am I affiliated with any of them. My attention was drawn to this issue by an article at RockPaperShotgun.com, and I felt compelled to respond to an instance where personal bias is demonstrably affecting access to a public domain resource. Sir Gareth (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Again with the personalities. Deletion review is not about the article nor about personalities. Did the closer, in reading the discussion, determine consensus correctly and follow proper process, or didn't they? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument is no , the proper process was not followed. There was a redirect target, it's a useful search term, so deletion should not have been performed. Regardless of whatever personalities or meatpuppets (which I see this is attracting) or the like were involved. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And it should be noted that while the tweet is mine, I did not post it to Caltrops, which I refuse to post on, and where they have impersonated several Wikipedia users, including Golbez, Lifebaka, and HalfShadow. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may respond to your rebuttal, I argue that my post is within the spirit of this review. Point 2 of WP:DELREV states "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly," and I would like to know if the closer knew of your activity at the Portal of Evil (as can be seen in this archived page: http://web.archive.org/web/20071124150748/www.portalofevil.com/single.php?poeurlid=4954). Furthermore, the coincidence and vague wording of the cited tweet with the deletion debate demonstrates a certain level of animosity. If the closer was not familiar with your personal involvement with the communities around PoE and OMM, then this is new information that should be factored into the closer's original decision to uphold your nomination. WP:COI notes that "Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." An admin with demonstrable connections to pages that the admin edits/removes should be taken into consideration, and in the AfD, the closer did not acknowledge awareness of this circumstance, nor did you offer it. Sir Gareth (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Just as a comment, I think this DRV can be evaluated without considering the COI between OMM and SchuminWeb. If anyone but SchuminWeb nominated to start, and AGF that the rest of the people in the AFD would have still responded in the same manner, closure in the same way would have been a problem. (If Lifebaka, otoh, was COI here, well, yes, but that's not apparently the case). Let's keep the personal issues about SchuminWeb out of this forum; if you have any griefs with what he did, there's other places for that at the user-review level (eg WP:RFCU). --MASEM (t) 05:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and award barnstar. I originally nominated this article, and in reading the close and the fallout from it, I can't help but notice how well the closing admin handled it all. Meatpuppets rounded up on a certain gaming forum were given exactly the weight in the discussion that was necessary, and once you filter out all the meatpuppetry and the commentary on personalities rather than content, you had an AFD with a clear consensus to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a conflict of interest vendetta at all... Fussbett (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Shotgun has quite a bit to say about you, Schumin, and it seems to point to a clear COI on your part. Silverseren^C 06:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have no idea what I'm supposed to write if I disagree with deletion, but I do disagree. In the first place, the site is notable. In the second, there is a HUGE conflict of interest in that the so-called editor who nominated deletion of this entry (as well as related entries) was featured as an "exhibit" on Portal of Evil (which also had its Wikipedia entry deleted--gosh, what an astonishing coincidence!) and has been childishly bitter about it ever since. Rather than taking anything he has to say seriously ("meatpuppets"? really?), SchuminWeb ought to be banned from editing anything related to OMM, POE, their owners, contributors and their sister sites.

98.225.90.57 (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Relist at the very least so it can be further discussed. To recap, Old Man Murray is referenced by the following publications: Wired, Kotaku, PC Gamer, ZDNet, Joystiq, Rock Paper Shotgun, and the book Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar. Newly found references since the deletion verdict include Salon (link, link) and UK newspaper Metro (link). However, because none of these links REVIEW oldmanmurray.com and only speak reverentially of it, they are then described as non-notable. Which is insane. Fussbett (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong overturn/undelete - Old Man Murray is part of the history of video gaming, and video game journalism in particular. Notability will only likely be found in video game journalism outlets, since video game journalism covers a niche that isn't terribly relevant outside itself. It is a mistake to move the notability threshold so high that those more notable outlets are deprived their necessary context and history. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with Masem below. Put simply: this is not a vote, and immaturity/desperation will be entirely counter-productive, regardless of which side you're coming from. It's fine if you make an account to come into this discussion, but please have something wise to say. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have a feeling this review may get visits from meatpuppets trying to save the article. Those that are coming here from outside article (like the Rock Paper Shotgun one), please understand the purpose of deletion review as there's certain things we do consider here and other things that are ignored. --MASEM (t) 05:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Question for closer was there a reason that either merge or redirect weren't done in place of deletion? Looking at Lifebaka's talk page, I don't think I ever saw a direct answer to that. Does the closer object to a redirect? Hobit (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly. Likewise, if we decide here that a merger is useful, I have no objection. I did not close that way only because I did not see any discussion on it in the AfD itself. My apologies for not answering this earlier. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Hobit (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong overturn Wow, the closing admin's statement is a clear example of something that should be given as a vote and not a close. The sources given by Iglotl in the discussion, such as this, are more than enough to establish notability for the article. I also believe that, at the very least, it should have been closed as a no consensus. This discussion on the closing admin's talk page is more disheartening, because it clearly shows that they were not closing due to the discussion, but due to their own opinion about the article. And it might be rather illuminating to read the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article that was made in response to this deletion, which also counts as another reliable source on the subject, incidentally. Silverseren^C 05:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The circumstances surrounding the deletion process present a conflict of interest on the part of the, let's say, deeply involved party. The fact that there was a previous attack on said party by a related website a long time ago, the fact that said party modified most if not all mentions of the article and associated writers, the fact that the party has admin privileges and yet still refuses to tone down their language (meatpuppet, a pejorative term (and acknowledged as such by Wikipedia itself), should not be repeatedly used by someone who has administrator priveleges), and the fact that there was a strong chance that these so-called "meatpuppets" were honest people with valid and well-thought-out points, should at least factor into this entire issue. At the very least, there should be a discussion about reinstating the article and allowing it, say, a week or a month's time to improve (with relevant sources), instead of, say, allowing seven hours for a process to occur before starting another AfD process. Most of all, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot should be held in high regard by all contributors. I've done my part, and Masem has done his in promoting an equal and cordial discussion. ArDavP (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn I went looking for sources. Someone said above that it had been referenced in Wired. So I went and found this, and this too, and then a third reference. None of those are detailed coverage of the site itself, which is important: They presume any gamer reading Wired is sufficiently familiar with Old Man Murray that no introduction (save a link) is needed. All the hoopla on motivations aside, Wired (magazine) is the canonical RS in the Internet culture arena. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn Per jclemens. I'm also agnostic on the question of whether or not User:SchuminWeb's alleged past w/ OMM/PoE colors the deletion nomination or whether it matters significantly. I'm leaning toward Masem's interpretation that the discussion itself didn't really hinge on User:SchuminWeb's actions and the various votes and final decision were made in good faith. However I don't think objections based on the perceived bias of the nominator are totally out of the question. Full disclosure I discovered this AfD here. Protonk (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional overturn. I understand why the AfD ended as it did, and don't fault the closing admin for it. The discussion had spiralled out of control, partly through the well-meaning, but inexperienced (with regard to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), contributions of newly-registered editors, many of whose comments were of the "it's obviously notable" variety, without offering enough sources as evidence. I'm not sure that deletion review was the best way to go with this—as written, the article did not demonstrate the website's notability. Since the AfD, better sources have come to light, and it might have been better to rewrite the article offline or in userspace, using those sources, before recreating in article space. I understand that Masem may not have wanted to be seen to have wheel-warred about it, but it would have been a perfectly proper recreation if the "new" article differed substantially from the old. So, overturn, but only if these new sources can be incorporated within short order. Steve ^T • C 07:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn I feel like a lot of people were earnestly expecting references and sources for this article that simply don't exist for this class of subject. I know you guys will cry some policy in response to me but there are an endless number of other articles that are in a similar class to OMM and don't have the references you're demanding for it. It's insane to be told it's my responsibility to produce a specific set of guide lines for sites like OMM to get it undeleted, when it should be YOU producing the set of guide lines to delete all the similar entries you don't want in your encyclopedia. Also establishing this set of guide lines would obviously be nice for subjects YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT. Someone was insinuating Kotaku just "a blog" on the discussion page for OMM deletion, that's a joke. Worm4Real (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse- because if this result is overturned then it will send the very clear message to all the off-site canvassers that off-site canvassing works, and then every time we try to follow our own procedures on something like this we'll be inundated by a flood of SPAs and trolls. Every damn time. And they'll probably always get their way too. That would damage the encyclopedia much more than the existence or non-existence of a single article of doubtful notability. We should insist on our right to handle Wikipedia's content our way and not roll over just because some trolls have turned up to muddy the waters. Reyk _YO! 08:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Outside events have nothing to do with Wikipedia and by voting Endorse, with that sort of reasoning, you are thus responding to the outside. Your reasoning should be based on policy and the value of the article itself. We don't want Wikipedia to seem like a snooty elitist site that only values regular members either. Silverseren^C 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This is ridiculous, cynical, and presumptuous: Plenty of long-time editors have voiced their concern on this DRV, and the closing admin will be aware of the SPAs. Furthermore, this is about the article's notability, of which plenty of sources have been provided up above. It is not about teaching a lesson; that is what would call into question our integrity. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist with a semi-protected AFD. Much as I like the idea of "punishing" the off-site solicitors, it isn't appropriate, and I could not discern a consensus to delete from the established editors at the discussion. The closer omitted to give appropriate weight to keep comments and sources. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, what? Are you really saying that you like the idea of punishing people who have the temerity to use the encyclopedia you've helped create as a resource and thus have viewpoints about what should and shouldn't be in it? Yes, the debate attracted a lot of editors who have not previously participated in AfDs, and who may have primarily engaged with Wikipedia as readers or anonymous editors. That in no way decreases, little yet invalidates, their weight in the argument. I see few comments here or on the original AfD that suggest a lack of familiarity with basic policy. Readers are community members too. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn precisely per Jclemens. The semi-protected AfD sounds like an excellent idea. Please also consider semi-protecting this DRV if any more SPAs show up.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The meatpuppetry on this issue was and continues to be a big obstacle to getting a consensus on whether there exists enough sources on OMM to establish notability. A note to people who are coming here from elsewhere: your opinion will not be ignored because it's coming from an SPA, but it will be ignored if it consists of irrelevant statements of agreement without evidence or attacks on the nominating editor, the closing admin, or Wikipedia general. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"It will be ignored because it's coming from a MEATPUPPET." As someone who never expects to be taken seriously (and never is, perfect record!) I am honestly concerned with why you guys think anyone will take you seriously while you spout these silly terms. Telling us "that some nerd culture just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia." while you guys use language that would considered dorky by even the most eldritch of nerd, truly amazing. We've even got people wanting to punish outsiders WP:BAKAHAMMER. Worm4Real (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

SPA/meatpuppet are basically interchangeable. Also, please take not that I'm actually arguing for the OMM article to remain. Your blanket "anti-establishment" attitude is really unhelpful. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of the comments I've seen from the people bearing the scarlet letter of "this user has made little or no edits outside this topic" have been helpful, linking relevant sources, and making valid points. In all the time I've been on wikipedia, elitism among the people who make the site a hobby at the expense of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" have consistently been its biggest downfall. 99% of the people who have ever edited this website are "single purpose" users, idly changing something on an article they were looking up anyway. It seems like a pretty weak dismissal of valid input on an issue, as most of those arguing to keep the article has made. Personally, I've never read Old Man Murray before, but Fussbett's list above seems like pretty strong evidence to my... ahem, 'meatpuppet' eyes. But what would I know, I'm just a user who doesn't even have an account or static IP. Better discount everything I have to say.108.16.116.218 (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If only I, the stupid meatpuppet, could see you're on my side! Look It's pretty obvious to see how things on wikipedia, but personally even if someone agrees with me about something, that doesn't make them some pure being of light who is free from critique. If anything you using a term that had been thrown around to discount the people who originally defended the article, to discount them further while agreeing with them is my actual issue. Worm4Real (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn per nom and Steve. The sources given by Ignogl in the 2nd AfD (Wired, Kotaku, etc.) may have failed WP:GNG in terms of significance of coverage, but the new sources that have appeared as a result of the article being deleted (such as [2] - from Rock, Paper, Shotgun, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as RS for video game articles) mean that this criteria can now met. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 09:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn due to reasons given by JClemens and Steve, many sources were given in the AfD page that are listed as RS such as RPS, Kotaku, Wired etc. If anything the AfD should have been closed due to no consensus. Winckle (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn Varied sources, including an RS listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and Wired. It really doesn't get much more clear cut than that. Sсοττ5834^talk 13:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: being considered a RS does not confer or require notability, only that the source is considered by editors to be an expert and demonstrated editorial control. In this case, Erik Wolpaw is an expert, so OMM is fine as a source, but that doesn't necessarily mean the site he wrote on has any notability alone due to that. (I do recognize, however, several of the shown sources are about Wolpaw and his connection to OMM). --MASEM (t) 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong overturn In accordance with points stated above; also the discussion during the original AfD was inconclusive at best. I would also like to express my discomfort at seeing a clear COI with regard to SchuminWeb and OMM, as detailed on Rock, Paper, Shotgun (see links above). --Mister Six (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong overturn I feel that given the copious research done on this subject and linked above, OMM does meet notability requirements. Also, there is a clear COI here from the nominator SchuminWeb, who should face some kind of disciplinary action for using the deletion process to further personal vendettas. thewittyname (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn Coming out of retirement to comment. No consensus was achieved before the discussion closed. Substantiative sources were provided during deletion discussion, but were overruled on subjective grounds. Notability concerns didn't rise beyond the level of single-sentence comments, except for the individual who brought the deletion request. Sockatume (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn — after reviewing the AFD, I don't see a consensus to delete, and several comments above by Jclemens and others seem to indicate enough reliable sources that an article is probably justified. I understand Lifebaka's frustrations at the SPA flood, and I'm sure he was acting in good faith, but I think closing as a de facto supervote in this instance was a mistake. Oh, BTW, looks like we've been slashdotted Full disclosure - this Slashdot post is how I learned about the AFD and DRV. *** Crotalus *** 15:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Relist Semi-protect new AfD to keep out the SPAs and allow a proper consensus to be formed (don't beleieve there was one one way or the other in the original AfD). This is exactly this kind of situation that DR was made for Raitchison (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn as per sources listed by others. --Powerlord (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. There was clearly no consensus met in the AfD, even among the established users. Furthermore, no one made even the slightest attempt to refute most of the sources cited by the unestablished users in the AfD; completely disregarding a good point from an editor just because they're unestablished is a poor way of behaving in an AfD. Because the deletion decision states that the sources provided were insubstantial, despite there being no commentary or discussion to that effect was made in the AfD, it appears that the closing admin may have acted too strongly on his/her own feelings rather than deciding based on the actual discussion itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn There were many notable sources offered in the AfD that were never refuted. I would go so far as to say that the consensus was to keep. Just because a site is old doesn't mean it should be deleted, or we risk wikipedia ignoring anything thing from the past of the internet. Monty845 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist. The fact that there was a lack of clear consensus amongst registered users means that this article should have never been deleted the way it is. The decision seems forced and unnecessary. Overturning the decision made looks like the only sensible option. Daimanta (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist Why was this done? Old Man Murray was well known, reliable sources were cited in the deletion discussion, and there's an obvious conflict of interest in SchuminWeb acting in any capacity on it. Please examine SchuminWeb's future access to Wikipedia - this kind of thing is beginning to give Wikipedia a bad reputation, in my opinion. 80.0.148.81 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can see a number of genuine and good attempts to establish notability in the AfD, citing good sources. I appreciate the concern over SPAs, but where the cites came from doesn't matter, the end result was notability established and these should go into the article. I also am troubled by the motivation of the nominator. This COI would be a red flag if creating or editing an article, and should doubly be so in nominating one for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closing admin was dismissive of keep comments. The logic of the closing statement does not convince me that there was a consensus to delete. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Allowing people to delete long-standing articles based upon notability is dangerous. As the younger generation comes over to edit the wiki, what they find relevant will not be the same as the previous generation. It’s like having a history class, but only making the students study things that they already know about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrmlguy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. No relisting.. While AfD gives administrators a wide degree of latitude on interpreting the discussions - and I should know, having closed some corkers in my time - we should remain mindful that "interpreting the discussion" exists alongside the far older rough check guideline on deletion that it should only occur if 2/3 of the commenters or more are in favor of deletion. Interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of commenters are in favor of keeping the article as concluding in a consensus to debate is possible. But it requires extraordinary evidence that those arguing to keep are out of line with WIkipedia policy. The explanation presented by Lifebaka falls miles short of this bar. The article clearly does not prima faciae fail notability - it has numerous citations to reliable and independent sources. There is no evidence that the commenters on the original AfD were unaware of notability policy or of the content of the article, or that they were primarily blind meatpuppets gaming the system. Yes, the discussion attracted a lot of comments. That should probably tell us something, and that something should not be "Blimey, our readers really use articles like this, we'd better delete them." The contributors on the original AfD appear to have looked at both the policy and the article, and decided that the minimum bar for inclusion was cleared. End of discussion. There is just no way to reasonably argue that a consensus to delete was reached. I thus view Lifebaka's deletion as an abuse of his admin powers - interpreting a discussion in which an overwhelming majority of participants acknowledge your viewpoint and still disagree with you as supporting your viewpoint strains good faith to its breaking point. I further see no value in relisting - the discussion as it took place is a conclusive endorsement of the view that the article clears the minimum standards for inclusion. Barring a compelling new point about the article, any relisting would be a textbook example of the tendency to get articles deleted not out of actual policy grounds but just by asking enough other parents that eventually you get one to side with you. In other words, it's a shameless violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. Barring an actual new argument, attempts to relitigate the already settled discussion are disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn I'm troubled by the way the second AfD proceeded - dismissing legitimate input as "meatpuppetry" really pushes the envelope, and there are clearly conflicts of interest as well; I suspect it would have gone differently if the conflicted admins had stayed out of the dispute entirely. I'm wondering if the admins involved should be put up for review. Stan (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. As a contributor to Wikipedia since 2004, I hope my arguments will not be summarily dismissed as being from a meatpuppet (is such cliquish language supported among admins)? Old Man Murray is certainly more notable than other pages created by Mr. Schumin, having been referenced by The Toronto Star, Montreal Gazette, The Edmonton Journal, Xbox Nation, the Sunday Herald Sun, The UK Guardian – 18 January 2001 and Computer Gaming World. At the very least, I would have thought that any possible conflict of interest would mean that an admin would stand completely aside and allow other admins to take over the process. Paul Moloney (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. The sources provided in the AfD were marginally sufficient to demonstrate notability. Since this topic area is known to be under-represented in traditional reliable sources, the closer should have given more weight to those sources than might normally be the case. This should have been closed as "keep" or "no consensus". As an additional note, it seems to me that we may have forgotten the purpose of the notability policy if we find ourselves deleting verifiable content which many people clearly care about. Thparkth (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn While meatpuppetry and attacks on the nominator are problematic, they do not negate the legitimate policy-based keep rationales that were also present in the discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. SchuminWeb clearly has an axe to grind with OMM's creators [3], and is trying his best to delete every reference of them from Wikipedia. I say restore the OMM article (which, BTW, is a pivotal page in gaming history with influence over many gaming companies, starting with Valve) and kick SchuminWeb as an editor, since he is not thinking about Wikipedia's best interests. Signed: a meat-whatever, and if that makes me opinion less valid, shame on you.--87.216.166.42 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Relist. Going with outright delete after 14 keep and 5 delete opinions - sorry but that's just calling for trouble. And with the previous AfD having been relisted twice and then deleted with just 2 opinions. Surely if the process had been protracted that long already, and now attracted some attention, it's not a case for a straightforward deletion. --Joy

[shallot] (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn. Reviewing both of the AfD noms, and this DRV, shows multiple axes spending time at the grindstone. That said, the second AfD did NOT reach clear consensus to delete, and the WP:COI of the nominator was clear to any who cared to do the research. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)