Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 12

12 July 2006

Sharon Janis

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis

Ezeu deleted this article on the grounds of "clear consensus", but what this actually amounts to is "majority of people who made entries to the debate". I do not believe this alone should be the criterion for deletion, but rather whether it cannot be argued, which I believe it can, that the article is a fair and balanced text about someone who has made an impact. I wish to point out that the individual who originally proposed the article for deletion was persuaded to change his vote to "keep", yet this was not taken into account.

Sharon Janis deserves inclusion for her contribution to television alone. I have no direct connection to Sharon Janis or her company, but I have read her books which are widely available on both sides of the Atlantic, and I am aware of her television work. I would point out that she successfully contributed to the very well known FOR DUMMIES series of books. Please reconsider this decision. I believe the article met the conditions for being included and access to her works deserves to be available to future generations.

I have no problem with my articles being deleted, as some others have, if it can be justified. I do strongly object to readers being denied access to knowledge of an individual because other people don't agree with their views or have not heard of that person themselves, and regardless of their unconvincing arguments, that is what I believe has happened in this case. I have entered other articles on people much more obscure than Sharon Janis and far from being deleted, others have greatly improved them. This convinces me that an injustice has occurred and I am going to fight hard to reverse it. user:Headshaker 10:18 12 July 2006

• Endorse deletion, deletion review is not second AfD, and valid AfD. The consensus on that AfD is for this to be deleted. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletion review can be for when someone believes we got it wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's often been used as a second AfD. The tone of this review is that of a second AfD. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Deletion review can be used for when someone believes we got it wrong. It's an appeal of the AfD process, and regardless of interpretation of tone, we shouldn't dismiss one's appeal because of one's interpretation of tone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Fine, I'll reword it to your satisfaction. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid AfD and evidence that claims to notability disappear in the light of scrutiny. Just zis Guy you know? 15:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Further note: 3 books on Amazon, best sales rank is #171,801. Latest one is self-published. Just zis Guy you know? 11:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AfD. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The AfD had a slightly moving target, as claims were dismissed, but editors clearly changed their "keep" votes to deletes. If the author of the article can legitimate the claims and develop a good case for significance for the figure, I would recommend that he craft a totally new article that is very careful in providing clear claims and verification. This deletion, however, was in process. Geogre 17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, procedure was followed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to thank George who has made the only comment that I perceive as a reasonable argument. I will take that challenge and resubmit a modified article in the next few days. I therefore withdraw my appeal on the article as it currently stands. Headshaker 08:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I make another appeal for my article. Since the previous deletion review was defeated, I went back to the article and modified it, then re-entered it. My understanding was that I was at liberty to do so. I may have been erroneous in this, as it was summarily deleted twice by separate administrators. However the talk page apparently remains and I also welcome discussion there. I would like the modified version restored, at the very least so it can be fairly judged. I will post the modified article at the article's talk page (if that is allowed) for evaluation. Here are my arguments for restoring it: 1. The content has been purged of exaggeration and is now 100% accurate. All content is verifiable either from the links I provided or contacting individuals and bodies directly. 2. The person who proposed deletion in the first place changed his vote, undermining the credibility of the whole process. 3. The subject fully satisfies criteria for inclusion on the grounds of being a widely publicised author in several languages as well as making a significant contribution to internationally successful television shows. Both the above are fully verifiable. 4. Exclusion would demonstrate inconsistency. I have entered far more obscure rock bands who have had much less success and recognition or influence, yet far from being also deleted, these were improved by others even more knowledgable than me. 5. The content of the first version was successfully challenged. The new version has not to date even been given an opportunity for challenge. (Refer to talk section of article if it isn't removed. On a personal note, I have no direct connection with the subject, but I am a fan, (even though my beliefs do not fully agree with hers) both of her television work and her books. But for the books being widely available and on which I stumbled on in a bookshop in the north of England, I would not have heard of her or realised shows my own kids enjoy were video-edited by her. I urge that future generations are not denied the opportunity to be aware of her existence.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headshaker (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006.

The above message was moved to here from the log for July 14, no need to start a new review for the same article. --Ezeu 09:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Endorse Deletion as per above. Dionyseus 15:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to see you making a reasoned counter-argument to the above second appeal rather than a "vote". Justify that vote with some substance. --Headshaker 09:00 16 July 2006. Btw what does UTC mean?
• Relist modified version. I don't know what the original looked like, but he claims it's substantially different. If that is not true, then I Endorse deletion. --tjstrf 08:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I've changed my vote because after searching for evidence I'm convinced that Sharon Janis is notable. She passes WP:Bio because she is a published author and editor who has received multiple awards for her work. Here's some of the independent reviews for her book 'Never To Return: A Modern Quest For Eternal Truth.' [1] [2] She has won two Associated Press awards, and apparently an Emmy award. [3] The two Associated Press awards alone are enough to satisfy one of the criterias of WP:BIO. Dionyseus 13:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC
• Overturn she looks notable. The article needed a massive rewrite to remove unsubstantiated claims, which has been partially achieved at Talk:Sharon Janis. Indeed, I think I'll rewrite some of it myself -- Samir धर्म 21:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten it, and I'm still not sure about the notability. Have a look at the rewrite and gauge things -- Samir धर्म 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. She's won several independent awards, that passes WP:BIO. Dionyseus 04:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who New Series 3

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who New Series 3

Someone came along later and performed the consesus action of redirect, so I'd simply like this one to be reviewed. How much more clear a case of ignoring consensus can we get? - brenneman ^{L} 07:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Careful, Aaron. Your obsession is showing in this and other nominations made today. This was a perfectly good article. The copious verifiable information in the artice can be merged to the redirect target but for some reason this was not done by the person who performed the redirect. I'll remedy this at once. --Tony Sidaway 07:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, maybe you should consider participating in AfDs from the start, rather than coming in at the finish? If your arguments are so awesome then everyone will agree with you and the AfD can be closed five days later without controversy. --Samuel Blanning 08:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  When I showed up all the work had been done, all the arguments made. All I needed to do was add a verification link, summarise and close. --Tony Sidaway 08:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Really? I don't see anyone making the argument you made. Your argument focused on verifiability, but the bulk of the discussion focused on whether the subject merited its own article, regardless of whether the information was verified or not. You don't seem to have even acknowledged that issue was being discussed, much less summarised the arguments surrounding it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think this has anything to do with obsession. This is a string of closures where the administrators seems to pick the arguments he likes, claims "AfD is not a vote" and implements what appears as his own preference rather than go with the emerging consensus. As Sam Blanning points out, if you have strong preferences in certain cases, you should maybe shed your admin privileges and engage in the debate rather than create a strong impression of impropriety. ~ trialsanderrors 10:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

    It's inevitable that the closing administrator will form a strong preference upon reading the debate. It is this that, in fact, constitutes the closing decision. There's nothing wrong with closing a good, well referenced article as a keep; to do otherwise would require quite extraordinary arguments to have been made, so as to support the deletion. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

    Um...no. You talk as if it's basically the closing admin who makes the decision on the advice of the other editors, rather than the admin closing to reflect community consensus. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, maybe change the result to redirect. I probably would have explicitly stated that the article be redirected, and maybe closed as no consensus, but an AfD ultimately comes down to keep or delete. Merge, redirect, transwiki or whatever results are just alternate forms of keep and delete. This one was validly closed. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a great difference between a keep and a redirect: a redirect is closer to deletion than keeping unless it involves a substantial merge. Usually the outcome of an AfD (as summarised by the closing admin if not overturned), while not exactly binding, should at least be respected in the short to medium term as the result of centralised discussion and consensus. So it does matter in almost all cases what that result is. In this case the result seems to have just been effectively ignored, which makes rather a mockery of the whole thing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because the article history is still kept. A redirect still keeps the content in history, and that content can be merged. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the amount of content visible to the reader is about the same whether the article becomes a redlink or a redirect. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, but the amount of article history visible to the reader is much different when the article is a redirect. Ah, never mind, we could go on forever... --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Merges and redirects are editorial decisions. It isn't incumbent on the closing administrator to get down and perform editing, though there's nothing wrong with doing that if he wants to. He is no different from any other editor in that regard. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Very true, and another reason why "redirect" is essentially a keep. --Deathphoenix ʕ
• Delete! delete! delete!. How about a list of Dr. Who episodes in which the entire remaining population of Daleks are finally and forever destroyed (again). Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • the continUAL RETURN OF DALEKS IS NO BAD THING!! cybermen and othER LIFEFORMS WITHOUT HILARIOUSLY HYSTERICAL VOICES ARE INFERIOR!!!!! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• I would have probably voted keep on this had I caught it. With that said, I didn't, and I see absolutely no reason to completely ignore the arguments made during the AfD, especially since I know of no clear policy or guidelines concerning this type of article. Overturn --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse overturn and change to redirect. Consensus of AfD appears to be more of delete and redirect, and is of nowhere near to keeping the article. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Tony, I'll ask you again to please stop treating the encyclopedia like your own personal playground. It's disruptive. Friday (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - A keep can become a merge or a redirect without coming here via the usual process of being bold. GRBerry 18:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the result appears to me to be no consensus, which is a keep. It looks like the article was then redirected per a strong minority position on the AfD. This all seems right. Maybe a bit more description on the closing page would be good, but I don't see any problems with the closure itself. JYolkowski // talk 22:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some for redirect, some for delete and none for keep is a unanimous verdict for "this article should not exist as a separate entity". Keeping the article as a separate entity because people couldn't decide whether it was worth a redirect or not is illogical. In such cases I close as either delete or redirect depending on whether the redirect seems logical enough and/or the history is important. If I create a redirect and it's invalid, someone can RfD it. If I don't and it's valid, someone who argued for redirection in the AfD can create it. But just removing the AfD tags and buggering off, no. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it makes perfect sense to me. Any result that is not a consensus for delete is a keep. See also others' comments below. JYolkowski // talk 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Uh... turning the article into a redirect is an editorial decision which has nothing to do with deletion. So why is this here and not on Talk:Doctor Who New Series 3?--SB | T 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. As per other comments, the nom displays a poor grasp of AfD procedure. Keep and delete are valid closes. Redirect/merge etc. all = keep. I also object to using this page to air long-standing personal obsessions. Use article talk pages to raise editorial issues, not specious "reviews" (although I did find the comment about "ignoring consensus" from this nom quite amusing). --JJay 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Leave it redirected. There were several who called for that so this is acceptable. Keep as is was a bit strange however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Change AfD result to redirect. The closure of this as keep is quite frankly astonishing. The clsing admin closed as a reult which was not advocated by a single user in the debate. The closing admin isn't supposed to unilaterally decide the case on its merits, but to reflect community consensus. Sam Blanning puts the case perfectly. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not the case I put. The admin is supposed to decide an AfD on its merits rather than counting heads, but in doing so they should be able to base the result on the arguments presented by each side in the AfD, and consequently have had the opportunity to be addressed and countered, rather than new ones they come up with by themselves. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agreee. This was one case that was closed on it merits. And why not? The merits are what matter. --Tony Sidaway 19:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You are correct in saying that the merits are what matter. However, the important thing is the community's view of the merit's, rather than just your own individual view. And, while the administrator does of course have some discretion, it does not extend to closing with a result that was suppported by not one of the AfD participants. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Will (message me!) 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete as its most basic level, an *fd can only return keep or delete. Other debate comments (merge/redirect) are suggestions as to what editorial actions will happen after that basic decison. A merge is "keep, but after keeping, merge into another article", and a redirect is "delete this article, but no objection if other editors point the title elsewhere." As all comment were either delete or redirect, the result of the afd should have been delete, and subsequent to that, any editor (including the closer) could have put on their editors hat and created a redirect. However, when wearing an admin hat, it is the closers job to close *fds based on the arguments put forward - they should not be closing based on the own new arguments. Regards, MartinRe 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Change result to redirect ... good grief. BigDT 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, Tony's decision is personal, not consensus. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oveturn and redirect there was no consensus to Keep. Eluchil404 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Case of English pronouns

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case of English pronouns

Clear consensus not to merge or redirect, closing adminstrator felt otherwise. --Aaron Brenneman 07:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• AfD is not a vote. Obvious redirect to Personal pronouns, which was performed by the closer. --Tony Sidaway 08:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Tony, can I recommend that next time you comment in a DRV on your own close, you make it transparent that you were the closer? Not a big deal, but seems cleaner. My own vote/comment below. Martinp 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  No. The identity of the closer is immaterial in a deletion review. --Tony Sidaway 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  The identity is only immaterial in the sense that each commenter on DRV does so on their own merits. It is a matter of courtesy to identify yourself as the closer when your decision is being questioned. Otherwise the closer is trying to mislead others into believing they are coming to the discussion afresh. David | Talk 10:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn: I don't mind the redirect, but it is a useless redirect, as it's true that pretty much no one would ever enter the term. We've been having quite a bit of "homework helper" article construction, like single answers to single questions on an ongoing test somewhere. I don't know if that's what happened here, but the only use for the redirect would be for the few people taking a specific test in a specific place. Geogre 11:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, unlikely page title. Dr Zak 11:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and either relist or delete (I would probably relist). Consensus doesn't agree with Tony's closure. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak overturn and reopen. I think Tony's right, and I applaud his desire to short circuit process where the result is obvious. But the amount of reaction makes it clear that opinions vary, and hence it should go through discussion. Martinp 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  If I'm right, then the logical thing to do is to endorse. It's pointless wasting time on discussion the deletion of something that doesn't need to be deleted (if in doubt, don't delete, etc). --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. It is the sort of thing I can imagine people putting in to search for, and it is an obvious redirect. David | Talk 10:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Tony's comments make perfect sense, and I might have agreed with them in an afd, but they do not match the consensus in the debate. A closer should reflect the views put forward in the actual debate, and if that is contrary to personal opinion, then the admin should add their opinion to the debate instead of closing it. (see also Splash's meta comment made on DRV recently. Regards, MartinRe 14:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist: early closure was clearly out of process. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/delete unless something was merged and the history needs to be kept for the GFDL - How is "Case of English pronouns" an "obvious" redirect to "personal pronouns"? Redirects are for when a subject is known by multiple names. For example, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University is known as Virginia Tech and VPI. Looking at Wikipedia:Redirect, I don't see anything here that makes me think "Case of English pronouns" is an obvious redirect. BigDT 00:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn as per above. Dionyseus 15:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. There was barely a quorum, if there even was one. The closing admin could have relisted it, but didn't have to. When only four people (including the nominator) weigh in, that gives a bit more leeway to the closing admin, in my opinion. If the 'pedia is crawling with people who want this phrase stamped out entirely, let them come to the AfD. Herostratus 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Edorse, I cant say I'm enamoured of the closing statement but redirecting is both proper and within the ambit of consensus. Eluchil404 18:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First image on the Web

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First image on the Web

I undeleted this as a redirect-with-history after it was mistakenly deleted following a merge which I initiated. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and Reopen While the consensus to delete was on the low side if *shudder* we're counting noses, the issue of verification was raised early on and the only source cited says merely "One of the band photos was among the first five pictures published on the Web." This may have been barely within the bounds of an "acceptable close," we're also meant to ensure that we're doing what's best for the encyclopedia. Verification is something we cannot let slide, so rather than relisting simply re-open for another five days.--Aaron Brenneman 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be pointless. The article is now merged and inclusion of the information is an editing decision. Which is as it should be. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Err... ok, so as long as I merge information (however unverified) from an article into another article the original can't be deleted? That will certainly come in handy. I'd also mention that this "merging" appears to have been nonexistant. Forgive me if I fail to understand why we can't simply remove the material from the target article, and apply our core principle of verification to the article in question. - Aaron Brenneman 05:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not thst you cannot delete an article if it's merged, so much as there isn't any point because, well, it's merged. If you want to delete the information you don't need to delete the article at all, just edit the merged article. On whether it's merged or not, I think you ought to look at the merged article and check it for yourself. The information about the "first web image" seems to have been present in the article for some time. As established at the AfD, it was corroborated by a Wired article. Quite adequate for such a trivial matter. --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. "A merge which [Tony] initiated"? Where did that happen, by the way? Dr Zak 12:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. You must be kidding me, there is only one keep vote throughout the entire debate, with the rest advocating delete or merge. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I just added a note and a reference link to the Cernettes article showing that while this picture can be claimed to be the first photographic image on the web, it cannot be reasonably claimed to be the first image Bwithh 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  I saw that,not sure I agree with your reasoning. At best I would call that original research on your part. Too trivial to be worth arguing about, though. Which brings me to my point: why are we wasting time arguing over this? --Tony Sidaway 06:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At best, original research on my part??? My external reference is Tim Berners-Lee's own website!!! what kind of reasoning is that? And if your main point is "why are we wasting time arguing over this?", why bother with wikipedia at all?? Good Grief. Bwithh 13:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, User:Kwh emailed me a more interesting critique of my note...see my talk page.Here's my reply to him Bwithh 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your source seems to confirm that you were drawing inappropriate conclusions from your own misconceptions of what Berners-Lee's WordWideWeb client-server setup was capable of in 1990. My query on why we're wasting time arguing about it related to my perception that you were using inappropriate arguments (original research) in order to refute a quite straightforward and not particularly contestable claim by a guy who was actually there, about a matter that, in all honesty, isn't that important. Which is why I closed this silly debate as a keep and proposed to merge it to Les Horribles Cernettes. Life's too short for these piddling debates about trivia that are reasonably sourced. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Another clear case of Tony Sidaway ignoring consensus. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse unless I'm missing something. Counting heads, it looks like about 9 delete and 7 merge. What am I missing? Tony seems to have obeyed the consensus. He should probably change his closure comment from "keep" to "merge" since the actual decision was to merge ... but what's the problem? BigDT 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I did in fact call a merge, and then someone performed a redirect and it becaee clear that the target article already contained adequate information about the images. Someone then deleted the redirect, and I undeleted it, which is why we're discussing it here. I do not close AfDs with a "merge" or "redirect" because in practice there is no merge or delete close. One deletes or keeps, and if the article is kept it may (like any other article on Wikipedia) be merged or redirected. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable, but it may be helpful to write "merge" somewhere so that someone doesn't see get the wrong idea as, apparantly, happened here. BigDT 02:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • It would take a very determined person to fail to realise that any article can be merged with any other. I don't usually say "merge" because I don't think that's the AfD closing admin's purview at all. If there is consensus to merge, rather than keep, it will manifest itself in editing. --Tony Sidaway 02:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • To the extent that no administrative action is required to execute the merge, you're right, of course, however, it would be most helpful to acknowledge in some fashion that all of those suggesting keep actually wanted to see the content merged and that NOBODY felt that an article by that title should remain. Obviously, you may not have the time/interest/expertise to execute the merge yourself, but I would strongly suggest, in the interest of preventing misunderstandings of this kind, that you acknowledge in some fashion that a merger was suggested at AFD. BigDT 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn What's the point in having a process if no one follows them. Dionyseus 15:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lumber Cartel

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel was closed by Tony Sidaway after three days of discussion (two days early) with the summary "Seems a bit pointless letting this run. I'm closing it." The discussion met no criteria for speedy keeping, and in particular was certainly not uncontroversial - even after the article had started to be rewritten, Pilotguy had argued for delete, and there are many other editors who argued for deletion beforehand.

Tony had argued for keeping previously, and is therefore especially unsuited to make this dubious close. This seems to be a kneejerk reaction to Crossmr's vehement objection to the conduct of User:DragonflySixtyseven the previous day and his subsequent contentious editing of the article. Crossmr is not the only editor arguing for deletion on WP:V grounds and we don't pull all the emergency brakes the moment a non-admin disagrees with an admin, even when in an uncivil fashion. An utterly unnecessary early closure. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. Obviously out of process, obviously worth the discussion given the WP:V concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do not relist; keep article. This is only up for deletion because of some people who have very strange notions about verifiability. Anyone with a clear head can tell that USENET articles are clearly a valid source for facts about happenings on USENET. Continuing on a deletion discussion where there is clearly no valid reason to delete, solely for the sake of "observing process" is a waste of time. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I do agree with you on the USENET stuff, but an extra voice over at WP:RS could be helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy close this review as process followed solely for the sake of process. The article isn't going to be deleted, so relisting would be pointless. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's Usenet jargon. While I'm not surprised that many editors remembered it from their Usenet days, I still have doubts that the sources, many of which are obscure Internet sites, refer indirectly to the content of the article if at all and include a Wired article which is headed with "Wired News has been unable to confirm some sources for a number of stories written by this author", are sufficient. Surely I don't have to trot out that AfD is not a vote? Yes, it's likely - maybe even probable - that it will get kept, and it may even be verifiable, but there was useful discussion taking place about that which did not need to be cut off. I do not follow processes for the sake of process, I follow them because they work (occasionally), and this one wasn't allowed to.

  Incidentally, I'm sincerely glad that Tony didn't walk into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno Source (second nomination) at this point (references added to an article mid-AfD, several editors including former delete proponent supporting keep on that basis) before I posted this. Maybe my fears in that AfD won't turn the outcome round either, but I didn't post them because I'm some fucking process obsessive, I posted them because we discuss things around here to get to the best decision, and we don't slam a lid on discussions before time unless they're causing damage, not because the sky is going to fall tomorrow and we absolutely must close discussions as soon as it looks like the result will go unchallenged. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, that was a boring rant, sorry. Let me put it another way: your 'speedy close' argument boils down to "I'm going to get away with it, move along". I don't have enough confidence in the ability of us admins to judge content that I can believe Wikipedia should be run on the basis that admins should do whatever they feel like so long as they don't end up getting overturned too many times. Ah, much shorter. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  I don't appreciate being told that my close argument was "I'm going to get away with it, move along." More like "this was an utterly pointless, wasteful and silly debate about a well known Usenet event, culminating in an overwhelming consensus to keep." --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  There was no overwhelming consensus to keep, as is pointed out above and below. And I stand by my characterisation of your argument, though I can rephrase it as "So long as I can rely on deletion review to bail me out, I can close discussions early when it's not in the least bit necessary as much as I like". And come on Tony, a well known Usenet event? Most people have never even heard of Usenet, let alone an obscure joke emanating from it that has never been heard of outside it and the websites dedicated to it. (Usenet, of course, is notable, because the fact that most people have never heard of it does not diminish its importance as a medium of communication. 'Lumber cartel' possesses no such importance beyond how many people remember going 'lol' at it).

  We delete non-notable jargon that has no significance outside a specific community all the time, and we try not make exceptions when that community happens to have heavy overlap with ours. Suggesting that keeping the article is uncontroversial ignores both the weight of opinion and the weight of argument. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • 'That's Bud's car. He always parks there." After a few more steps the Captain inquired, "How does he get away with that?" The Lieutenant Colonel reflected for a moment and responded, "I don't know--he just does."' [4] Dr Zak 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. While I don't see the point of closing it early, it is clear that reasonable closure even after a few more days would have been Keep, so let's short circuit process and get on with it. Martinp 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of deletion process. The basis for the deletion nomination (unverifiability) was successfully corrected. --FOo 02:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. (1) it was going to be kept, WP:SNOW; (2) every single keep vote was met with an angry rebuttal by the nominator, which prompted a lot of back-and-forth sniping that spilled over to several other places; (3) with the attention from ANI came a lot more users who were going to vote Keep, so the nominator wouldn't be satisfied that it was a "fair" keep outcome anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• "[A]ngry rebuttal?" Sorry, but that's just untrue. The only thing that even verges on incivil is "Can you prove to me who wrote them? No you can't." Hardly fire and brimstone. This user raises a valid and consistant argument regarding verification, this should have been allowed to proceed. I also note there is a great deal of discussion on this very talk page regarding Tony Sidaway's closing of reviews early and/or that he's participated in. The near-unanimous consensus is that it's a bad thing and should be avoided. I have (on several occasions) attempted to raise this with him on his talk. His response had been that as there was no policy he'd do as he liked. I've also just noticed this close as "keep" after seven hours and unanimous recomendations of "delete." If Tony is unable to make compelling enough arguments to sway discussion, I'd suggest that using admin privledges as an alternative is severly sub-optimal. - Aaron Brenneman 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Don't get too upset about this, but to me it looks as if you want to tell other administrators how to close deletion debates. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reopen - Considering our policies on notability, such as WP:WEB and WP:MEMES (proposed), WP:RS, WP:V it doesn't seem that a fad on USENET should have survived AfD. That being said, DRV is about process, not content. Three days in, it was 20/13/1 K/D/M, and a controversial topic. A speedy keep just doesn't seem right. It should be allowed to run it's course. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist per nominator. Process is important. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist. Perhaps the "Lumber Cartel" is really a half-forgotten internet meme now. The only way to gauge the importance is through reasoned debate. Short-circuiting the discussion by an involved individual was wholly inappropiate. Dr Zak 05:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Inappropriate early closure. Process has a purpose and should not be readily circumvented except in the most exceptional and clearcut cases. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well, the nominator is persisently refusing to acknowledge the existence of sources, has edit-warred over the article, and is currently sitting out a block for a three-revert rule violation on same. Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  That is irrelevant to this DRV discussion. We are not reviewing the nominator's actions or behaviour, we are reviewing the early closure of an AfD, two rather different matters. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please don't spread misinformation. The block was for another unrelated article, and as I've explained on my talk page, it was improper for the admin to do, proper policy wasn't followed, and after analysis of the reverts I didn't violate 3RR.--Crossmr 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  The propriety of the block remains contested. While we're on the matter, you still haven't addressed your persistent (and puzzling) refusal to acknowledge the presence of adequate sourcing. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thats because I don't feel its adequate sourcing, and I've seen more than one person agree with that. Even DS acknowledged on my talk page that he thought the example I brought up about Vladimir being dubious was accurate. --Crossmr 14:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, even the participants in the original discussion thread in 1997 thought "Vladimir" was a troll. However, it was their mockery of him which led to the birth of the "Lumber Cartel" concept, which is still bandied about on Usenet, mentioned in sigs, and is the name of a blocklist maintainer. The Lumber Cartel may not be on the same level as CAUCE (which really needs an entry), but it's still going. DS 00:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of the existence of the lumbercartel has never been in question. Its the rest of the information about it. These are two very different concepts. While we can say sources x,y and z say "yes this exists" the credible sources contain no useful information, and if all it took was one or two credible sources to say something exists to give you a license to use non-credible sources to source information on the subject, I think you would have a very different quality of encyclopedia here.--Crossmr 01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Relist, what's an obvious need to close early to some might not be so to others. Nothing wrong with letting this run its course. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist Keep closed, not an endorsement of process, but by WP:SNOW I dont see this going in any other direction in a relist and WP:AfD is overcrowded as it is, so we should keep relisting as an option for those cases where might create a different outcome. Controversy melts snowball. ~ trialsanderrors 18:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But we can't do anything by WP:SNOW. In fact, this could very well be a clear endorsement as to why NOT to do things via WP:SNOW - instead of the article possibly being kept after 5 days, it will take almost two weeks (3 days for original AfD, 5 days for this DRV, and, assuming we relist, another 5 days at AfD). --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The difference is that I have no stake in the outcome of the AfD. I didn't vote and I wouldn't vote now. TS on the other hand voted keep so his invocation of SNOW is, or can be seen as, strategic, to cut off potential opposing views. If there is reason to believe the AfD might turn on another two days' lsiting feel free to relist. I don't see it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • "his invocation of SNOW is, or can be seen as, strategic, to cut off potential opposing views". I've seen WikiLawyering, but this is the first case I may have seen a genuine case of WikiWarfare - Sun Tzu as applied to keeping those guys who totally pwned those spammers on that Internet forum in lasting historical record. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It's actually just simple WikiGameTheory. ~ trialsanderrors 05:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I closed it because the listing was ill-conceived and poorly argued, and article obviously wasn't going to get deleted. --Tony Sidaway 06:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • the listing was ill-conceived and poorly argued As was your closing statement, which is why we're here. ~ trialsanderrors 16:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very strong Comment There is a significant problem with this article at the moment, as Usenet postings are not being used to show what happens on Usenet. They are being used as verification about the activities of third parties, which is contrary to all accepted wiki notions of VERIFY—a non-negotiable policy. The activities of Duane Patterson, apparently important for this article (though it could actually function perfectly well without him) are apparently verified by the fact that someone on a google group said that he was sent something by his General Manager who got it from a wannabe spammer who got it from Duane Patterson. Is this acceptable? Not to me. Tyrenius 07:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  Could you please explain why you consider Usenet posts to be unacceptable in this context? Be specific? Please remember that some of us were actually there. This is how real events actually happen. We don't need an 18-year-ikd researcher to do a fact check and work out that it happened because we lived through it. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  I'd love to take your word for it Tony, but thats a violation of WP:OR. The problem with usenet is that nothing is reliable. You have zero accountability and no control over who posts what. The Vladimir post is the exact problem with this and was used as a citation for an alleged document that allegedly came from a site and allegedly said some stuff, which is the foundation for the vast majority of whats in the article. You are not a secondary source of confirmation.--Crossmr 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Relist. A number of good faith calls for deletion, so did not meet speedy keep guidelines. Closer participated in debate, and should have left it to a neutral admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist as a bad-faith closure of a discussion the closing admin participated in. Nandesuka 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Reopen. WP:SNOW notwithstanding, would another two days really do so much harm? Also, on principle, it is highly inappropriate for the closing admin to have participated in the debate. --David Mestel^(Talk) 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, flagrant abuse of process, due to both the unreasonable early closure and the closure by an involved party. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, well if nothing else, this has resulted in an interesting debate on the mailing list. The basic subject being, how realiable are minor print-based media as compared to the internet in general and usenet in specific as a source of data. If you believe some of our mailing list members, you might want to check twice any facts coming from your local paper... --tjstrf 05:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist - what the heck? BigDT 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme relist, yet again another case of Tony Sidaway doing whatever the hell he feels like doing. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Relist We must follow the process. Dionyseus 14:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and reopen previous debate, Tony ought to know better but assumes he knows best. Whoever has told him that he is a good admin is wrong. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relist too many deletes to Speedy Keep. Eluchil404 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)