Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 22

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)

22 July 2006

Corona Regis

Corona Regis was set for deletion and deleted within an hour of its creation and before it was deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkodner05 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Deleted valid CSD on just created micronation, db-club Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Google search for "corona regis" +micronation = zero results. --Centauri 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since this subject does indeed score the coveted zero ghits benchmark for official invisibility. There are a (very) few notable micronations, this is not one of them. "No assertion of notability" applies here; in fact the article pretty much asserts non-notability. Just zis Guy you know? 12:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion While not technically a CSD, micronation articles almost never get kept. Only argument for nominating is that the article was deleted soon after being created. Keep deleted on the grounds that there is no reasonable chance this would pass an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, yes, the snowball clause would apply here. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society

Overturn the deletion of the Mega Society article, on the grounds of procedural error. There were two problems I had with the deletion process and result.

• 90%+ of the discussion was concerned with Notability whereas the deletion guidelines clearly state the grounds for deletion are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:COPY, none of which were in much doubt. This shouldn't have been a problem in itself since the closing admin is meant to carefully weigh the arguments, pros and cons, and ignore irrelevant issues. But this isn't what happened ....

• When I enquired of the closing admin, Jaranda, for his reasoning, I found that, in the absence of a consensus, Jaranda had merely performed a head count tally of the established, non-anons and deleted accordingly. This is in clear violation of the following:

deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. - Wikipedia:Deletion policy

To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

My contributions to the AfD would have been very different had I realised that I was only going to be counted in a vote. I'm sure other people would have behaved differently as well.

I should add that I do not blame Jaranda for his course of action: the AfD was long and tedious to follow --furthermore I understand that he was just following "usual practice". However procedure has been violated here, and very likely in numerous other deletion processes. The local problem can be addressed by an overturn; the more general problem needs addressing at a higher level. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. If nothing else, the principle of "when in doubt, don't delete" has been broken here. GregorB 16:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Brian64.12.117.5 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC) I think this deletion appeal raises important issues whose scope is far greater than the article in question. Here are some comments, slightly edited, that I made during the deletion debate that show why:

This deletion debate horrifies me. When I read 1984, where anyone whom the ruling elite didnt like was made an "unperson" and all records of him erased, I thought, thank God that's fiction. When I read about the old Soviet Encyclopedia, and how anyone who fell out of favor had his article (as well as his life) deleted, and all users were sent a letter by the NKVD telling them to cut that article out of the volume, I thought, thank God I dont live there. But this is chillingly real.

There are two aspects to my horror.

1. I have devoted my life to halping the ultra-high IQ societies gain the credibility they deserve. I first heard of the Mega Society almost 20 years ago, thanks to a cover story in New York magazine. Some of its members became famous, just by being accepted. It is as respected among us as MIT or Harvard are in the world at large. To find that there are people out there who have never heard of it is as shocking to me as when I moved to the Midwest and found people who have never heard of Wordsworth or Rodin. It means that perhaps my life so far has been in vain.

2. I was at first skeptical of Wikipedia, and the whole notion of a grass-roots internet encyclopedia. I've edited a few entries over the years, but I hesitated to devote much effort to work which could be deleted by the first vandal who came across it. But as time passed I became a believer. The thing worked. But now, in the one area I know about, I have seen just HOW it works. Nameless, faceless, ill-informed accusers can at any time delete an area they object to. They pretend to be a democracy but must out of necessity be an oligarchy. And, since no group of a few hundred people can know everything, they must out of necessity be ill-informed about most of the subject matter they consider for deletions. It's a sad (yet almost humourous) blend of Kafka and Joseph Heller. It doesnt much matter now. Wikipedia is young, and one of many souirces of information. But what happens when it becomes the gold standard? What happens when it becomes the Mega Society of the information world?

Several people have said that they pitied the closing administrator who must decide this case. Instead, I feel envy. This is a great opportunity for him or her to make a contribution to Wikipedia that far exceeds this individual case.My dad was a professor of administrative law and from the time I was a kid he drummed into me three things that make a fair decision under administrative law different from an arbitrary decision by administrative fiat. They are notice, hearing, and (perhaps most important) reasons. NOTICE. As it now stands, the parties affected by a deletion are not told about it. They must learn about it by chance. Yes, these parties may well have a POV. But they are also uniquely qualified to provide relevant information. And uniquely injured by an incorrect deletion. HEARING The deletion procedure does indeed provide a good hearing, provided people are aware of it. Thank you for that. REASONS If the closing admin writes up a short statement of reasons for his or her decision, this will help guide future administrators in future cases. As I understand it, there is no clear policy on notability. It may be applied differently in different cases, and whether or not something is deleted will depend on who the admin is. If reasons are given in this case, they may be used to guide future cases. Not as binding precedent, but for guidance, and, over time Wikilaw will evolve

Some people have told me that Wikipedia works through consensus and not rigid procedure and rules. This may have been possible in the early days but I dont think it is now. Norbert Weiner once wrote that the limit of a small self-governing community where everyone knows each other and can reach consensus is about 100. You cant know every editor and I'm sure not every editor knows about this decision. You might well be a self-organizing system, but if you make a mathematical model of it, you might find that model predicts articles being deleted and then undeleted in an infinite cycle.BrianPromking(I wrote this and am now linking it to my Wikipedia account)

• Endorse. Notability is considered to be an inference from Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since the issue under dispute was the fairly subjective one of the notability of the subject, neither side's arguments significantly defeated the other's, and a majority of established editors seemed to favour deletion, the admin was perfectly correct in his actions. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, deciding by majority voting is violation of procedure:

To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion

What we have here is evidence of a widespread misunderstanding of policy, even amongst admins. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

QED. Since in this case neither argument significantly bested the other. Therefore, the consensus of established users was adopted. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A "majority" is not a "consensus". --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure Article violated all three main policies: WP:V (could not verify legitimacy of group; group admitted it was impossible to select at that level by standardized means in contrast to how they portrayed themselves in article); WP:NPOV (advert; unverified claims); and WP:OR (material presented on "high-end testing" never before published in psychometric journal). Also, nn per nom. DaturaS 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Response shows a complete misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy of the sort that bedevilled the AfD. These are all debatable /inaccurate criticisms of the society, not of its reporting on Wikipedia . --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. I was referring the way the organization was presented in the article, which is why I endorse closure. That the group does seems to suffer these problems as well may be beside the point but are, IMO, contributory. DaturaS 21:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A presentational issue can be dealt with on the talk page, not by a heavy-handed deletion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

*Relist on AFD I closed the original, close AFD, I followed Northenglish mainly while closing it and discounted new users Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relisting would achieve -- I think everyone has offered their opinions sufficiently about the article, and would probably be quite weary at the thought of opening that can of worms again... What we need now is for a new admin who's prepared to wade through the original AfD and then this DRV, seeing that due process is followed as per the guidelines, rather than as it is usually practiced. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok Endore Closure as valid AFD filled with new user votes discounted. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you respond to my opening points that your deletion was unlawful since it violated policy, for example:

AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

since there was no consensus, rough or otherwise? What did you make the vote tallies? --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure - Not notable. Closure was valid. Deletion is about judgement and argument, and while notability is not written in stone, it is a common element in the judgement people make to delete things. --Improv 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, deletion based on notability is "usual practice", but that is one of my original points -- "usual practice" and "procedure" seemed to have parted company awhile ago (and not just for this article). --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How does a Wikipedia admin who knows nothing about a subject decide whether something is notable in that subject? The only thing that makes sense is that the admin must familiarize himself or herself with the subject. That did not happen during the AfD, therefore it violated Wikipedia policy. Canon 21:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion - Mega Society gets 14 thousand google hits. That far exceeds the bar for notability. Strong Overturn. Wjhonson 22:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per coverage in The Wall Street Journal (Graham, Ellen (April 9, 1992). "For minds of Mega, the Mensa test is a real no-brainer") and elsewhere. Wjhonson, you might want to weigh in at the deletion review for Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe—it gets even more Google hits (16,800 for me). Tim Smith 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure and note that MichaelCPrice (talk • contribs) has been soliciting editors to overturn. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and until it is clear that the deletion process is not just a head count I shall continue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, appears to be part of a walled garden, of no provable significance outside of its own members. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your issue of being part of a walled garden being false (see below) you haven't addressed any procedural issue in this appeal. Your vote should therefore be discounted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As cited in the AfD, Noesis (the journal of the Mega Society) is read by tens of thousands of people each month. I offered to verify this number but the admin never followed up; I repeat the offer now to any interested admin who emails me directly. There are many "walled gardens" that have influence outside of their membership that would be difficult to prove, two examples that were given in the AfD are Society of Fellows and National Puzzlers' League. Canon 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Though I'm only a bystander in this debate, MichaelCPrice has a point. You don't delete a topic merely on the basis of a headcount. This would mean that the majority is always right (=has most knowledge and insight), which is often not the case. I don't really know what the deletion criteria are, but if Michael is right about them, this page deletion really shouldn't have happened. And even if notability plays a major role, give the topic the benefit of the doubt. And there is a lot of doubt, as even when the heads were counted, there wasn't a consensus (far from it). The most negative thing that can happen, is that Wikipedia gains an article with a debatable notability (which does not mean it lacks notability, but merely that some think it does, others think it doesn't). The most positive thing that could happen, is that Michael and others are stimulated to strive for a decent article, with a degree of notability that is sufficient for everyone. Sijo Ripa 16:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. Many (most?) of those on the original discussion page were arguing for deletion on some combination of dislike for Langdon and/or Hoeflin and distaste for the concept of quantified intelligence in general. It seems clear that this article in particular was targeted for deletion not out of some (arbitrary) concern of significance but out of what is clearly a violation of the NPOV concept that is one of the most important aspects of WP. An inordinately disproportionate effort within the discussion page was focused on the irrelevant (and alleged) misdeeds of Langdon. Considering the extensive fact checking employed, mention within the Guiness Book of World Records should be more than sufficient to verify that the society is not a hoax and is, indeed, a legitimate organization. While the society may be irrelevant to most of society, there are many other niche topics within WP that are likewise irrelevant to the majority of others - that those advocating for deletion of this article are not also seeking to delete the others for "lack of notability" is further evidence that they simply have a bone to pick with either the concept or those involved. There is no justification for deletion, and the article should be undeleted without delay. --Mingano 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn The idea that Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection of information is obviously correct, and therefore it also is obviously correct that an article, to be included in Wikipedia, must be on a notable subject. How is a Wikipedia admin to know? The idea is that there are independently verifiable references that can be tracked down to establish the "ring of truth." That of course requires a lot of time and effort, and in this case it requires learning something about a new domain, namely, high range intelligence testing. In the course of the AfD we have supplied references that provide a background for this domain and that are sufficient to establish that the Mega Society is notable. During the AfD no one has contradicted anything in these references. Therefore the deletion violated the spirit and the law of Wikipedia policy. Canon 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - Procedures were not correctly followed! --May-Tzu 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion vanity/promo article, no grounds for reconsideration. Look out for SPA's / anonymous accounts / sockpuppets here. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your issue of vanity being false (see below) you haven't addressed any procedural issue in this appeal. Your vote should therefore be discounted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(Read: Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines). Firstly, Megasociety members were not writing this article (or at least "not only" them), so you can't really use the word "promoting" or "vanity". (Btw: promoting what? membership? not likely as you need an incredible high IQ for that). Secondly, lack of fame does not equal vanity. Thirdly, there are multiple editors, so the subject is well-known enough to have a decent article (=the main problem is evaded). Fourthly: even if this would have been a vanity-deletion: vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion (the lack of importance however could be), which means that the deletion process is still flawed if it would have been on the basis of the vanity argument. Sijo Ripa 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the vanity argument is untenable because (1) the founder of the society, Ron Hoeflin, does not claim to be qualified to be a member, and (2) the people who separately and independently verified Hoeflin's work, Grady Towers and the Prometheus Membership Committee, do not claim to be qualified to be members. Canon 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the promotion argument is untenable because the society does not generate revenue in any way. Canon 23:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, so far there have been no SPA/anonymous/sockpuppets involved in this deletion review, and the only sockpuppet in the AfD was on the delete side of the argument. I'm not sure if that's relevant, but those are the facts. Canon 23:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per pretty much everybody above who feels that this article should not get another chance to exist or even be placed back on AfD. The article was a unverifiable promotional tool. Even if revenue isn't generated, one can still promote one's interests. -- Kicking222 00:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from your claim of the article being an "unverifiable promotional tool" being itself unverified, you haven't addressed any procedural issue in this appeal. Your vote should therefore be discounted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that an article is promotional is (1) so vague with this definition that it could apply to nearly any WK article, and (2) irrelevent because it talks about the hypothetical motivations of the article's authors, which have nothing to do with the procedural issues raised in this review. This assertion should be discounted. Canon 01:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin did not find that the article was "unverifiable". The closing admin states that he did not attempt to verify the article. Therefore the deletion was in violation of WK policy. Therefore the article should be reinstated. Canon 02:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This user is Chris Cole, one of the three "officers" of the Mega Society. He identifies himself here. Michael C. Price is also a member and/or frequent contributor to their newsletter. Please note that individuals who are directly involved in the subject of an article are asked to identify themselves to the admins and should remove themselves from the debate. The bulk of the support in the AfD and review came from these two users and Brian/Promking (who although not a member, "spent two years trying to join it"). I would ask that the reviewers please disregard comments from these involved parties. DaturaS 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the argument that the officers wrote the article weak. Most articles are writen by persons directly affected by the subject. Only perhaps the top one percent are writen by people far removed from it. Most people contribute to articles about their school, their town, their favorite sport, etc. So contributing to an article about your favorite club isn't really any different. At the very least a club that *states* they have 10,000 members achieves notability, and that a club exists, means it can't be vanity to have an article on it. If the article is sufficiently vain, that can be corrected in talk, without deleting it. Wjhonson 05:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the remarks of those most closely connected with the subject of an article should be ignored is nonsense; they're likely to have significant information which is highly relevant. In fact, DaturaS writes in a style easily identifiable as that of Chris Langan, who has a long-standing dispute with the Mega Society. Kevin Langdon

• LOL - I'm definitely not Chris Langan, but I'll take that as a compliment (I think). DaturaS 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier (above), the [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines|vanity guidelines]] state that closely associated people are not problematic contributors, on the conditiion that they are not the only contributors. Also note that vanity cannot be a sufficient reason for deletion. Sijo Ripa 07:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good points, but it's also important to know about conflicts of interest. My concerns were not over the article itself, but rather vote-stacking in the AfD and review. DaturaS 15:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am Chris Cole, the Internet Officer of the Mega Society. I did not write the original Mega Society article, but as Internet Officer I saw it as one of my jobs to make sure it was correct, so I did edit it several times and I've done so during the AfD in response to various criticisms and requests for references. The last version has nearly as many footnotes as lines, which makes it rather more "verifiable" than most WK articles. As long as we're talking about me, note that I've been on the Internet for a long time (I registered one of the first 100 domains). I've edited the rec.puzzles archive for three decades (http://rec-puzzles.org). Relevant to this discussion, I consulted with Encyclopedia Britannica and wrote the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries. As part of this effort I became friends with the editor in chief of Encyclopedia Britannica and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, so when I speak of what is required to make an article "notable" I believe I have more than the average person's background in that subject. Despite my conflict of interest, I can guarantee the WK admins that a panel of professional encyclopedia editors would find the Mega Society article worthy of inclusion in WK. Canon 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Then how come it isn't included in any encyclopedias? DaturaS 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles in Wikipedia that are not in any other encyclopedia (e.g, Society of Fellows). This is because WK is a grand experiment in organizing all of the world's knowledge, which is well beyond the ambitions of any previous encyclopedia. I think this is a noble and worthwhile effort, which is why when something goes wrong we need to examine the causes and see if they can be fixed. In this case, Jaranda made a mistake in procedure, which he himself admits above in this review article, and thus it is clear that his action should be rescinded. Will it be? The jury is out. Canon 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn The Mega Society is a widely-known high-IQ group which publishes a journal on the Web which is widely read and the article makes modest claims, admitting that high-range testing is a new field in which there is still much uncertainty. There are serious procedural errors with the deletion, but the most important one is simply that there seems to have been no serious attempt to weigh the *reasoning* offered in the deletion debate instead of counting heads/socks. Kevin Langdon

Apologies of this is not the correct way to notify this but there appears to have been some vote stacking going on by user:MichaelCPrice - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060722191854&limit=50&target=MichaelCPrice Spartaz 09:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the above comment to here to preserve choronological order as per guidlelines. Yes, I have been asking around for some people to vote and voice opinions here. I have already addressed this issue earlier, but I will repeat myself. Votes should NOT count in an AfD or a review decision, yet they apparently do. Hence until I am assured that contributions and reasons will be carefully weighed on their merits alone I shall continue to tout for votes. If I'm wrong and votes are not merely counted then there's no harm in what I've done -- the extra votes will simply be ignored. If my worries are founded and there is a divergence between procedure and practice (which I note that not a single contributor has denied) then what choice do I have? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "votestacking" as such is a problem, as long as the debate contributors clarify their view with arguments and counterarguments. Votes shouldn't really count anyway, arguments should (polls are not votes). I admit that MichaelCPrice contacted me and I just read Wikipedia:Survey notification which states that I should have mentioned this (I didn't know I had to) - so my apologies. However, I assume good faith and think Michael wanted to contact people, merely because they would have otherwise never have known this was put on deletion review. I however do think people with different opinions should have been contacted and that it is problematic that this didn't happen. I disagree with Michael on this: there is some harm: while votes shouldn't count, there is a possible lack of additional and decent (counter)arguments (which seems to be the case as not one "endorse deletion"-user has put a decent argument forward). Anyway, this isn't a real problem and can easily be solved by contacting these people. It was a good idea to point this out, Spartaz. Sijo Ripa 10:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about the notification requirement, which I presume is now satisfied. Also I note the notification guidelines state:

Skewing toward those knowledgeable and interested in the subject matter is good

since I canvassed amongst the various other IQ wiki-societies, this satisifies the "knowledgeable and interested" requirement. Finally I agree with both Spartaz and Sijo Ripa that there is possible harm with this procedure; I presume that is why AfDs shouldn't be votes. That they seem to be votes is the real harm, or the greater evil, if you like. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, valid AfD and the closing admin validly ignored sockpuppets and new users. And Michael, if you choose to reply to this one with another comment on why my !vote should be discounted, I shall also discount your comment. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that your comment is addressing procedure, although it is incorrect that the closing admin should ignore new users (or suspected SPs for that matter). The guidelines state:

On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous. - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion (my emphasis at end)

Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the AFD discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. -- Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure

--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Okay, your response isn't quite the same as your other responses, so I'll make a response here. The guide isn't a strict policy, and isn't a legal document. In other words, despite what it may say in the guide, Wikipedia policies take precedence over a guide. In any case, I'm unlikely to change my mind on this, as this article is like so many other previous articles that have been deleted, and the AfD is like so many other AfDs that have had !votes from new users and sockpuppets discounted. I'm sure the closing admin took the comments into consideration, but new user and sockpuppet !votes simply don't hold as much weight, because AfDs are about forming consensus among the general community, not about counting votes. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does the statement "Wikipedia policies take precedence over a guide" come from? Policy is defined by the policy guidelines: The opening box of Deletion Policy says

This page is an official policy

How much more unambiguous does it have to be?

The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states in the opening paragraph:

Every admin should also read and understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

It seems to me that there is widespread ignorance and complacency, even amongst admins, as to exactly what their responsiblities are. Please don't see this an attack on anyone in particular, but I am very disturbed by the divergence between deletion policy and practice and the apparently caviller fashion in which deletion policy guidelines are dismissed as irrelevant.

I am pleased, though, that we are debating procedure at last. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix, it surely can't be the case that because this AfD looks like other AfDs that therefore the article should be deleted. That would be form over substance. An encyclopedia editor does not have to know everything, but he or she must be willing to actually review the available references. Sometimes an editor can avoid this work by soliciting the opinions of a variety of experts in the field. Merely counting up the votes of non-experts is not a reliable procedure. I read the WK policy to be explicitly forbidding this. That is why it allows the consideration of the opinions of anonymous users, whose expertise may be obvious from their arguments, and why it explicitly states that the deletion decision is based upon reasons and evidence, not votes. The deletion decision in this case is a mistake that the Wikipedia community needs to admit and rectify, not circle the wagons and defend. Canon 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix, why do you say that "The guide isn't a strict policy, and isn't a legal document"? I think this "Wild-West" outlook infiltrating WP is hurting it. The guide most certainly IS a legal document. See: Law. Football has legal documents, card games, etc. The guide is a set of rules to follow. And what does "strict" mean in front of policy ("guide isn't a strict policy")? It either is policy or it isn't.--Tstrobaugh 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn obvious deletion agenda SOUTH 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Procedures were followed, discounting the questionable arguements from new Wikipedians. Although I feel that the WP:V, WP:NOR parts of the the article might be merged into High IQ Society, it might be easier to start over. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The closing admin Jaranda admits (see above) that procedures were not followed and proposes that the AfD be relisted. So it is clearly not the case that procedures were followed. It is becoming very clear that very few WK admins actually know WK procedures. These procedures are in place for a reason, and the mistake of deleting the Mega Society article would have been avoided if procedures had been followed. Clearly this review needs to be handled by a WK admin that actually knows WK procedures. The main procedure that was not followed is to review the arguments and evidence presented, including of course reviewing the references cited. A dispassionate reviewer who actually reviews the references cited in the AfD and the last version of the article would find that the facts stated about the Mega Society in the article are verifiable and the Society is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia. Canon 02:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn Deletion The Mega Society is well-known, and has been mentioned, discussed, and re-discussed in numerous articles during the 25 years of its existence. The small number of members is a simple reflection of the difficulty in meeting the admission requirements, and not a reflection of either cultural significance or the level of general societal awareness of the Mega Society. No one would suggest that the entry for Mensa should be deleted, for example. Mensa is simply the best-known organization at its point on the admission spectrum; the Mega Society is by far the best-known organization at its point on the admission spectrum. I find it incomprehensible that this entry would even be considered for deletion. Galizur 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion, please. I've read through the many (often interesting and/or revealing) substantive comments pro and con re deletion of this entry. On balance, it strikes me that most of the pro-deletion comments (though not all) were personally based, either in the posters' being offended at something connected with Mega Society or with Kevin Langdon, the current editor of their journal. Most (but not all) of the anti-deletion comments pointed out the history of the organization, the quality of contributions to Noesis over that period of time, and concerns about the precedent associated with a deletion of this sort. Mega Society has clearly shown itself, over time, to be more than Kevin Langdon, and it exists and has generated interesting (and highly accessible, on-line, free) publications (imo), so it will be interesting to see how this is finally adjudicated. My suspicion is that the adjudication will say more about Wikipedia and also its future than it will say about Mega Society. That the issue of the deletion of this group ever came up and then that it actually transpired is itself, to use the dreaded term, notable, in my opinion. M Stewart. MstewarthmMstewarthm 18:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn something's fishy Cadwgan Gedrych 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to the closing admin Please take note of the fact that there is a lot of shilling going on in this review (as well as the AfD). Canon is one of the Mega Sciety's three officers and Michael C. Price is also a member. As involved parties, they should remove themselves from the discussion due to promotional interests and let the Wikipedia community review the AfD. DaturaS 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never attempted to hide my membership status (and Noesis is available on-line, so I couldn't anyway). As for whether I have to actively declare anything, well do I have to declare I have a Physics BSc/MSc before editing a physics article? I note that my user page and sig at least display my name, which is more than can be said of DaturaS's one-word user page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, DaturaS, how about revealing who you are so the reviewing admin can determine if your comments are unbiased? Canon 21:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion I’m Don Stoner, the author of a very controversial book on creationism and a grandson of Peter Stoner. Although I do not qualify for membership in the Mega society I am not sufficiently vindictive to believe that those who do qualify should not be allowed even as much as a single entry here. I am convinced that the Mega society, is, indeed, every bit as real as it purports to be. Further, its extreme entrance requirements alone are enough to make membership a very notable prize - in fact, enough of a prize to induce a “sour grapes” response from those who can’t meet the requirements. -Don Stoner http://geocities.com/stonerdon/index.html

• Overturn deletion. I am not a MEGA SOCIETY member (my IQ is not so high to even think about wanting to join.) Deleting the article solely based on vanity on the part of the author is at best undoubtedly unfounded. I don't know Ron Hoeflin personally, but what I have encountered through postal mail isn't vain in any way. It looks to me that a good portion of the ones endorsing the deletion are indeed the ones whose ego has been affected by the mere fact that they don't have an IQ high enough to be part of this group. Which society is up for deletion next: TOPS, Intertel and goodness forbid: the mighty MENSA. I smell witchhunt in the air, an air that should in my estimation be breathed by everyone, even by dunce cap wearer and broom riders alike if it were the case Eddy* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.135.7 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone check whether this one is a SP? This IP didn't edit since March. (My apologies in case it isn't). Sijo Ripa 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• After contemplation, my opinion would be to conditionally overturn, if, and only if, better sources besides Omni could be brought as proof of notability, and a bit more about how the society interacts with other socities or peer-reviewed High-IQ research could be brought. If that cannot happen the article should be remain deleted. -- Avi 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace with userfied version Mega Society -- Avi 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are various articles about the society, Hoeflin's tests, and various people collected here: http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/refer.html. Norming high range tests is tricky because unlike mid range tests, which can be normed using the usual sampling techniques, by their nature high range tests have to be normed by comparing the scores in the mid range and then extrapolating the selection bias out to the high end. Hoeflin performed this extrapolation six different ways (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html), each corresponding roughly to a different data source. This was then checked by Grady Towers using his own extrapolation and standard Item Response Theory methods (http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/megadata/gradynorm.html) and independently by a committee of ten people, all of whom were proficient with statistics and some of whom were psychologists (http://www.prometheussociety.org/mcreport/memb_comm_rept.html#Some%20Available%20Psychometric%20Instruments). In addition there have been (at least) three other studies that have been done, but they have not been as nicely written up as these two. Avi, I see from your user page that you are an actuary, so the math in these reviews should be familiar to you. You would do us a great service if you would review it and report your conclusions back here. Canon 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn DeletionI've been home for two weeks now. Within my first day on the net (since I left for school last year), my sister emailed me a link to Mr. Miyaguchi's website. In a matter of moments, I was simultaneously tackling all of Dr. Hoeflin's IQ tests (unsuccessfully). The point is, in a matter of an hour or two of being online, I already knew about the Mega Society/TOPS/OATHS/Prometheus Society/Mensa/Intertel/ISPE/TNS/etc. Anyone with a bantam interest in tests of this sort and access to the World Wide Web would have heard of the Mega Society by now. Furthermore, like I have stated before: notability is being equated with fame, which is a conspicuous compromise of what is means to be "notable". Strangely enough, this is a prevalent phenomenon that we should all take time to make cute little cultural parallels with, but I digress. The bottom line is, how the hell could you be a controversial creationist? In any event, there's apparently a prodigious puzzler and bible-thumping physicist that see things my way. CDiPoce 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion I've been tracking the discussion since it began and the follow-on effort to delete articles on lower-threshold societies. It seems that the articles both meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and could stand to be improved. Personally, I'd been aware of the trans-Mensa societies for 20 years, but never saw the point in joining. I was not impressed from what contact I'd had with Mensans and assumed anything past them would be more of the same. When I did join one, I found it and its members much different than I'd expected, and useful to me in ways I would not have predicted. I'd like members (and disgruntled former members) of the various societies to contribute their assessments of each, and of High IQ culture, for better and worse, to the corresponding articles. This would be broadly useful.

Which brings me to a point I'm surprised no one has made: the HIQ community is, more or less by definition, replete with people whose knowledge and word-skill could be of great benefit to WP. Yet these AfDs and many of the comments therein seem tailored to antagonize this pool of talent. Enoent 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• User's first and only edit. Will refrain from using the s-word ... DaturaS 14:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Both suppositions are irrelevant and deserve to be ignored, not rebutted. What should matter is the quality of one's ideas. (Although it is comical that these observations come from an account that was created two weeks ago, and used fairly exclusively for attacking articles on the High IQ community.) Enoent 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. For the opposite reasons as I gave for Musa Cooper. What is the problem here? I mean really? An encyclopedia should provide knowledge. If knowledge and intelligence isn't the hand in the glove than I don't know what is.--Tstrobaugh 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE for closing reviewer: since the AfD was closed the userfied version of the Mega Society has been further developed to satisfy the requirements for verifiable sources and provide evidence of notability. Also other high IQ societies (Prometheus Society, Triple Nine Society) and their founder, Ronald K. Hoeflin, have had AfDs withdrawn against them as their articles were similarly developed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox article?

How come the Userbox article was deleted? I'm kind of a n00b, so don't yell at me for not knowing. --momo 17:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Leave as-is [1] Userboxes aren't encyclopedia content, they're things you find on the user pages of encyclopedia editors. We try to maintain a strict seperation between the "encyclopedia" and "all the nasty stuff that goes on in the background that helps people make the encyclopedia." Userboxes are part of the latter. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• The place for information about userboxes is Wikipedia:Userboxes (in the Wikipedia namespace for administrative matters, not the main namespace for the actual content of the encyclopedia). --Metropolitan90 05:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cluster Resources, Inc.

Deletion review is probably not the right place to put this but I'm not sure where is:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cluster Resources, Inc.

closed (correctly) deleting the article, but the dependent entries Moab Grid Suite (product of the spammer, redirecting to the deleted article) and Image:Cluereshq.jpg (photo of the spammer's headquarters, unfortunately not including GPS targeting coordinates) should also be deleted. There was also a bunch of linkspam inserted into other articles that I cleaned up most of, but I can't delete the above, and I'd rather not leave any remnants around.

Related article Maui Cluster Scheduler now has its own AfD. Hmm, TORQUE Resource Manager may need one too. These are actual articles rather than redirects, so I guess they need discussion.

Thanks. -- Phr (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Moab Grid Suite meets WP:CSD#R1 (redirect to nonexistant page) and has been tagged as such. I have no idea about the image, but it looks like it'll be deleted for missing copyright status in the next day or two anyway. I'd just take the TORQUE article to AfD or maybe prod it, it's not really a DRV issue. BryanG^(talk) 09:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis

After DRV's previous decision to overturn the keep result in the AfD for Kitty May Ellis and delete the article, the article's primary composer reposted the content at Kittie May Ellis. Judging the content substantially similar, I speedy deleted this as a G4 repost, and protected both pages, in an effort to get this matter resolved through a new appeal to DRV. The article's composer has taken exception to this deletion, leading to a long discussion on our respective talk pages regarding the reasons his article was ultimately considered not verifiable.

He presents the following points below, affixed with his signature. I have posted this DRV for his ease. Xoloz 04:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• The opinion of an editor who has no knowledge of a source, as it whether it is a WP:RS should not be the basis for deleting an article. A grading of a source as a WP:RS should be based on other WP:RSs, not on editors opinions. If an editor feels that a source is not a WP:RS they should obtain a citation which states that. If during an Afd or Review, there are opinions stating that something is not a WP:RS the closing admin should disregard those *unless* the poster can confirm their opinion using a WP:RS.
• A newspaper reporter, reporting events, that he/she was not an eye-witness to, should be considered a secondary, published and WP:RS
• Extracts of government documents, published by third-parties should be considered as secondary, published, WP:RS.
• This article was deleted based on a claim of non-verifiability, without any attempt being made to determine whether the sources were actually verifiable. The mere fact that some sources are hard to verify, should not preclude their being used if they are the only or most pertinent sources available for the task.
• This article was marked {hangon} and {underconstruction} with active editing at the *time* it was deleted. No attempt was made to allow me time to correct the stated flaws. The main complaint was that I was citing to the online diary, when I should have cited to the published secondary sources. I was in the middle of making those changes when the article vanished.
• And finally WP:AGF should dictate that I was making an attempt to make the article *more* verifiable and it should not have been deleted.

Wjhonson 04:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I feel a bit sad for the author of that article. Even though I haven't read it, I think I get the picture from the AFD and DRV. I think the solution is for the author to submit the article (or a revision) to some appropriate historical journal, along with copies of any necessary source materials needed for the journal's referees, instead of trying to put it in Wikipedia. That puts the RS question into the hands of professionals, and those referees can accept types of source material that's not accessible enough for Wikipedia. If the journal publishes the article, Wikipedia can then use the article as a source. If the journal rejects the article, well, they're professionals and we have to assume that they know what they're doing. Phr (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion with regret. Perhaps a sister-project? The cited source is primary, the subject is unverifiable from any secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 11:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The question of verifiability was not for the trivial facts of her life (to which refer e.g. the "extracts of government documents"), but for the assertion that she warranted inclusion because as a diarist she is a notable source for historians. No source was given that could pass WP:V for this claim, only links to the local newspaper and a privately published document. The article fails both WP:BIO (a guideline), and for her weak claim to notability, WP:V (a policy), and has thus no reason to be included in Wikipedia. Fram 12:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has already been published, in a historical journal, along with source material. Wjhonson 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fram has been a consistent mis-characterizer of the statements I made. Fram claims no notability based on no verifiable sources. These claims have been refuted many times. I have posted the WP:RS which are WP:V and these claims have been taken to the talk pages of those guidelines and policies where they agree with my position. A newspaper on microfilm *is* verifiable and a non-eye-witness report is WP:RS. If anyone can find where I'm mistaken, please inform me. The relevant policy pages say that I'm not mistaken on this point. Wjhonson 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The events of her life are not sourced from the diaries, they are sourced from newspapers, historical journals, and government documents. All verifiable, secondary, published sources per WP:RS. The diaries only serve to support and back-up the events cited from the secondary sources. Wjhonson 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, for the umpteenth time, I'm not discussing the events of her life, I'm discussing the notability of her diaries as an important source for historical research, as indicated by verifiable publications by reputable publishers. First, wjhonson: you say that "the article has already been published in a historical journal, along with source material". Could you tell us when and where? It may strengthen your case. Second: I am not claiming that you can't use the census or a persons obituary to gather facts about her life. They don't give any notability though, and aren't under discussion here. In the article (version: User:Wjhonson/Ellis), the only source that may be what is needed is "Clearview Pioneers", which you cite as evidence of two dates and places. Is this a work published by a reputable publisher? Does this work claim that the diaries of Kitty May Ellis are an important source for the historical knowledge of Clearview and other places? Or is she just mentioned as a pioneer who indeed lived there for a while? Fram 16:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One I didn't say you were discussing the 'events of her life'. One of the objections to the article was that it was cited to the diaries. That is the only thing I was addressing in stating that each statement is made from secondary sources, and *backed-up* from the diaries. Two yes, her diaries are notable as an important source for historical research, as indicated by verifiable publications by reputable publishers. Three, you may not be claiming that I can't use the census, and other government documents, but another editor did, I took that to WP:RS and they said no, you can. Four, an obit does give notability, if the obit is writen as an actual news story by a reporter, gleaning information from multiple sources and editing it together into something newsworthy. That is what occurred in this situation. That would be in-contrast with an obit submitted, paid-for, and writen in-whole by a funeral home or family member, which is *not* what occurred in this case. Fifth, yes, each place where she has appeared, they have noted that not only is she a newsworthy individual herself, but also that her information, backs up and fills-out many newsworthy events from the various pioneer communities in which she lived. Hopefully this is more clear now. Wjhonson 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Where and when is the article published, as you claimed it was? You did not respond, so I ask it again. Fram 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Notability of the person is not established. My daughter writes a diary too. And she even won some prize from the school district. So what? `'mikka (t) 22:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Not again! It's because of this stupid article that I'm taking a Wikibreak from closing contentious AfDs. Regardless of the results of this DRV, I strongly urge the author to please accept the final result and not waste any more of Wikipedia's time. --Deathphoenix ʕ 11:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I understand that the article creator has done a lot of work putting this together, and the subject is interesting, but she just doesn't meet the standards of notability given in WP:BIO. Whatever the result of the DRV, Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please let the issue rest. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 18:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Why would we assume good faith in wjhonson when he violates WP:MEAT by soliciting meatpuppets like here? Fram 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorsed Dairies do not make for good verifiability. (That's why primary sources aren't liked). Previous DRV and 2nd AfD already ended this. Also, my good faith is indeed burned by fram's link encouraging 'vote-stacking' on what is a non-vote anyways. Kevin_b_er 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I must disagree here, there's a dairy very near my house and its existence is easily verifiable by the sound of mooing. --Daduzi ^talk 02:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, process was followed, insufficient new information cited to verify that the article subject is notable enough for a general encyclopedia. Probably useful to a very very very few people, and might belong somewhere else, but not on Wikipedia. Barno 06:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)