Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 5

5 July 2006

Jim Weathers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Weathers

This article should not have been deleted. Please restore. Valrith 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(Note: notifications have been placed at User talk:Naconkantari and User talk:Xoloz about this discussion.)

• The page has had a colorful history [1]. Could you elaborate on what was on the page that was deleted and why you believe that the deletion was incorrect? BigDT 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the first time I saw the page, it was claiming the person was a major-league baseball player for the Cincinnati Reds, but contained a stub pointing to basketball bios. The first thing I did was fix the stub link, presuming the rest of the information was accurate. However, after checking both Cincinnati Reds and [2], I found that assertion unsupported. Given this, I changed the article to point to the noted Bondage rigger who helped to found [3] and now is one of the people behind [4]. Both the "Bondage rigger" article cited above and SIGNY award have links to Jim Weathers. Valrith 22:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That falls into ":Category:Things user BigDT is not likely to do research on to find out if they are notable".  ;) I have placed a notice at the talk pages of the two admins to most recently delete the article. BigDT 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know exactly who Jim Weathers is. Is he a baseball player or adult film actor. If he's both, undelete the page and use it as a disambiguation page. Otherwise, undelete and expand the article to show notability. Naconkantari 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment He is not a baseball player. IMDb shows that a Jim Weathers made one movie, just 99 movies short of the notability threshold in WP:PORN BIO. TerriersFan 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - This is the second time that this page has been deleted. IIRC (perhaps someone would check) last time it was also a hoax as it was this time - the creator of the page claiming the guy was a leading baseball player. There is a bondage rigger called Jim Weathers but the only information on him on this page was just that; hardly encyclopaedic. Google produces little more here. It seems to me that any additional information about 'Jim Weathers' could be added to the article Bondage rigger and this page should stay deleted. TerriersFan 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I provided a rationale for this in an email per request. I'll post it here for ease:"I make millions of mistakes every day. :) I don't think this is one, but I could be wrong. The governing AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Weathers. While it is true that the content is literally different, I did "interpret the rule" (the other IAR, which I do endorse) of G4 to apply. Why? Well, whether one says Weathers is a porno actor, ballplayer, or an acorn, it is clear that some prankster has it in his mind to make a joke at that location. Now, I can either run the thing through process for every different job the prankster dreams up, or G4 until real proof of the existence of a notable person at that name appears. I choose the latter, and I think such a choice is reasonable. You may take the matter to Deletion Review if you disagree (or show me proof that the ballplayer exists, and I'll undelete right now.)"

I still think that rationale holds, though I'm always open to new evidence... I don't see it here yet, though. Xoloz 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse deletion if that wasn't clear already. Xoloz 16:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: There's a pitcher for the Reds named Dave Weathers. I can't check since I don't have access to the article's past versions, but is it possible that the initial page creation was just mistitled? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Unless this can be definitively sourced, endorse the five speedy-deletions. Looking at the previously deleted versions, I agree with Xoloz that there is a pattern of abuse here. By the way, if we can't definitively source it, we should also clean the links out of those other articles. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eon8 (2nd nomination) demonstrates a clear consensus to keep, which should be obvious from a quick glance. Overturn.  Grue  14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Delete Many keep votes were put forth with no rationale, rationale which had no link to Wikipedia guidelines, or even "it's hard for me to put my explanation into words."

The only keep rationale put forth which actually relates to Wikipedia notability guidelines, WP:WEB and/or WP:MEME is the newspaper article which is allegedly in Politiken, a Danish newspaper, which is offered as evidence of non-trivial coverage.

As noted by Bwithh, no other media coverage was found in a search of a large commercial database, in addition Google News only shows coverage by a paucity of blogger and internet-only news sites 5 days on. KWH 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not going to vote at this point, because I have some sympathy with both sides of the debate, but it did seem to me that arguments to keep were largely arm-waving and those to delete founded on policy and guidelines. Perhaps Grue could favour us with a summary of the stronger pro arguments as he sees them? In the end it's not process which counts but policy (and to a slightly lesser extent, guidelines). Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. AfD is not a vote, verifiability is a non-negotiable pillar of being an encyclopaedia and trumps empty hand-waving. This article failed WP:V miserably, with all sources being blogs or on a similar level of triviality, apart from one newspaper article which fails the 'multiple sources' part of WP:WEB. "Keep until we can get sources" arguments, which are numerous in the AfD, are very shaky at the best of times and completely invalid once the article is nominated for the second time (as this was) - at that point, it's too late, enough is enough, source or die. The rest of the keep arguments have even less grasp on what it means to be an encyclopaedia, mainly consisting of that old chestnut, "I heard of it" and "it's interesting" (which makes it a valid candidate to write about in your blog or forward to your friends, not to preserve in historical record). We should carve this discussion into stone as a perfect example of why AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that Slashdot (coverage about Eon8) has a paid editorial staff that verifies and removes stories that are documented to be false. Their fact-checking process is non-traditional in that it involves readers, however, corrections and updates are made frequently by staff members after publication.--Eloquence* 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• [ec] I am bound to point out that we keep The Game (game) based on a single Flemish-language source. Not that I disagree with you; if these things are so very significant it's astounding that they have not been covered even once in the mainstream press, even in the weekend sections which are a veritable cruft-o-rama these days. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good grief - the game is a lark which is not actually a game but a meme based on a dynamic of admitting frequently that you're a loser and getting as many people to admit that they're losers too? Sounds Pythonesque. A stupid game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? Bwithh 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe we actually kept that.  RasputinAXP  c 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• We not only kept it, we deliberately undeleted it at DRV following deletion at AfDs. Based on exactly one reliable source (of unknown actual reliability; it might have been a member of the savethegame.org site that gave the journo the story, after all). Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Reading back over those AFDs and DRVs is depressing. I can't add anything to that first sentence without the temptation to use profanity overwhelming me. - Motor (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• (three edit conflicts later) Endorse (my own) decision, keep deleted. A quick glance would indeed show the 144 or so "votes" to keep (I tried to count but lost faith). Whilst there were a number of experienced users who believed the article should be kept, there was a far greater number of experienced users who believed the article should be deleted. Discounting the votes of sock/meat puppets and those with less than 20 edits, the significant majority of arguments were for deletion. AFD is not a vote, and so I took - as I always do when closing an AFD discussion - into account the quality of the arguments. The quality of the arguments to delete (it failed WP:WEB, WP:NOR, and possibly WP:NOT) far outweighed those to keep ('I don't know why it should be kept but it should'). But, of course, a "quick glance" wouldn't have provided any of that information. It took me a good thirty minutes to trawl through the discussion and the related links before making my decision. It all depends on whether you believe AFD to be a headcount of how many Slashdot meatpuppets can descend onto an AFD within a given 5 day period, or a reasoned discussion that takes into account of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The argument to keep was nothing but swearing and ranting. That to delete applied policy and process. Proto///type 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. Meets WP:WEB (Politiken plus very substantial Internet coverage including high traffic sites like Slashdot). We're here to argue about whether the closer followed deletion policy. The closer argued that, in spite of lack of consensus to delete, the page should be deleted because: "AfD is not a vote; arguments for deletion outweigh the (quote, unquote) 'arguments' for keeping." This is not sufficient reason to override community opinion. The closer did not point out how the page fails to meet WP:WEB at present. Note that the Politiken coverage was pointed out fairly late in the discussion, which even favored keeping the article before then.-Eloquence* 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the closer argued that, ignoring the legion of brand new and unregistered users, there was a consensus to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

By what definition of consensus? Many long-time users, including admins, argued for keeping the article.--Eloquence* 15:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been semi protected for sometime so the number of total new users should be limted.Geni 15:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're here, Geni, can I ask what was the thinking behind your ignoring the AFD, and, instead of going through DRV as Grue did, unilaterally restoring the article? Proto///type 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't I just applied WP:OWN to it. Or more correctly I applied WP:OWN to your descission.Geni 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• From WP:WEB: This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content ... should have an article on Wikipedia. WP:WEB is not binding policy. It is just a guideline and should not be elevated above that status. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn — the discussion clearly indicated a complete lack of consensus, which requires that the article be kept. ➥the Epopt 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we consider AFD to be a straight vote, and fail to take into account the quality of argument, that would be exactly correct. I'm pretty sure we don't do that. Or, at least, we shouldn't. Proto///type 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I, for one, believe that the methodology behind your decision was correct and applaud you for making it. It's a bad thing when fans of a particular cruft can flock to a xFD debate, flood the vote with keeps as de facto sock puppets, and then an administrator just counts heads. However, though I agree with your methodology, the incident seems to meet WP:MEME and, thus, I don't agree with your analysis. BigDT 15:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks BigDT. I did note both WP:MEME - which it may have just passed - and WP:WEB - which it failed. But those are both guidelines (and WP:MEME is a proposed guideline), not policies. WP:V is a policy, and so bears a lot more weight, as does WP:NOR. Proto///type 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD is first and foremost about implementing community consensus through deletion decisions. Admins, historically, have a janitorial role, not an editorial one. They push buttons that we cannot make available to anyone for security reasons. The primary responsibilities of the closing admins are therefore technical: verify whether, discounting sock puppets, there is still substantial lack of consensus for deletion. This is the case. You are arguing you have a right to override community opinion, because the page is "against policy". However, WP:WEB is a fairly recent policy, unlike, say, NPOV or our copyright policy. These core policies are non-negotiable and closing admins have a responsibility to enforce them. More specific content policies are flexible, and it is not up to a single admin, but to the community at large, to develop such highly specific policies through process and precedent. It is clear from the precedent that the community feels that the page either meets WP:WEB, or that WP:WEB should be expanded to be slightly more inclusive of phenomena receiving broad web-based coverage.--Eloquence* 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB is a wikt:guideline, not a wikt:policy. I do not have the right to override community opinion. I have the 'right' as the closing admin, to take into account the validity of the arguments. If there are 20 'keep this because it is good', then I would go with the one 'delete because it fails WP:V', with evidence provided, every single time. And I would remain unrepentant. Proto///type 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Proto, you decided to delete a page in spite of a clear lack of consensus to do so with a quick comment that some arguments are better than others. Now you are, for the first time, bringing up WP:V as a justification. Fine, we can continue to discuss whether the article content was verifiable. However, for the next time, when making a bold move like this, please carefully document under which principle and based on which evidence you do so. As it stands, this deletion needs to be overturned on grounds of process alone. As for the argument about verifiability: Are you suggesting that the experiment never took place, that the website never existed, and that all coverage about it is the result of a well-orchestrated campaign to plant false information in blogs and wikis? Surely not. I will agree that the article attracted a large amount of original research, which was carefully vetted by experienced editors later in the process. However, the core facts can be easily verified -- through the published reliable sources, and the large amount of decentralized coverage.--Eloquence* 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please carefully document the reason for your decision, with at least twenty-seven eight by ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining the evidence... KWH 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn/Undelete - It certainly seems notable as a meme and has an article on Wikinews. BigDT 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Closing admin made a careful judgement call. I don't see this subject meeting WP:WEB or WP:MEME. Bwithh 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Both WP:WEB and WP:MEME are guidelines to be interpreted by the community. In any case, one can interpret WP:WEB so that it applies. Proto argues that WP:V is violated, but he did not make that argument when closing the deletion.--Eloquence* 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I thought he was not making an argument for the deletion when he closed it but deciding based on the totalaty of the arguments made (which did I think include WP:V). Dalf | Talk 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. A bold decision to overturn a substantial numerical majority that based their opinion on little or no reasoning. This is exactly how AfD should work, exactly why AfD is no longer called VfD, and exactly why the decision of Proto should be defended. Batmanand | Talk 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not how AfD is supposed to work. It is a consensus-based process. If there is no consensus to delete (and I mantain there wasn't), the article is not deleted. The "quality" of the arguments matters only in close cases. The opinion of one editor (the closing admin, in this case) should have the minimal influence on the result of the discussion.  Grue  15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree AfD is about consensus, it is also about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an article falls foul of them, unless people can give good reasons for it not to be deleted, it most certainly should be deleted. For example, and I quote from the {{AFDAnons}} template, "The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion". Batmanand | Talk 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per Samuel Blanning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, AFD was properly conducted and the closure was well within the admin's discretion... in fact, he is to be congratulated for noting the arguments made and not simply headcounting. It wasn't exactly a subtle or complicated decision -- there was simply nothing to justify an article. The keep votes are hopeless hand-waving. The most anyone could some up with was a day's traffic spike after having been submitted and accepted to Slashdot -- before that the Alexa ranking was hopeless (so much for the claims about widespread paranoia). As for Slashdot being fact-checked... there speaks someone slightly desperately looking for an case to make. - Motor (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I won't comment on the merits of the actual article, which I've never looked at. It might have verifiability issues, it might be better off redirected to YTMND or Internet phenomenon or some article like that and just briefly mentioned there, who knows. But just looking at the discussions themselves of whether to delete the article, I find the way they were handled on closing seriously inadequate. For the first nomination, which looks like borderline-acceptable support for deletion at best, the closing admin provided no explanation for how they reached that conclusion. It shouldn't be surprising that this didn't hold. For the second nomination, we get a conclusory explanation that the arguments to delete outweigh the "arguments" to keep. Fails to explain why this conclusion was reached, and the scare quotes seem to try to dismiss one side of the argument without actually dealing with it. Above, Proto elaborates a bit: "The argument to keep was nothing but swearing and ranting. That to delete applied policy and process." You can find swearing and ranting no doubt (on both sides), but as a generalization this is such a ludicrous description that I have to conclude Proto was simply disregarding the outcome of the discussion and substituting his personal opinion for that of the community. That's not acceptable. --Michael Snow 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  Do you think it is immaterial that a large number of the keep voters in the orignal discussion are very inexperienced with Wikipedia, some with zero article edits? --Gmaxwell 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do, everybody has to start from 0. Maybe this article interested many people, who then wanted to defend the information and registered? Lapinmies 18:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, I don't think that is immaterial. Clearly both discussions contain input from people who aren't serious participants in the community. But even if I disregard comments from IPs, accounts labeled during the discussion for low participation, and accounts with no user page, I have difficulty finding that the first nomination approaches the usual standards for deleting an article. Not to mention the second. If even more of the comments than this should be ignored (and overwhelmingly those arguing to keep the article), there needs to be an explanation of what particular kinds are being ignored and how that results in a discussion that justifies deletion. That's why I'm saying the admins involved blatantly failed to establish why they would decide to delete the article on the basis of those discussions. --Michael Snow 18:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. "zomg blogosphere" and one mention in an obscure newspaper do not make it verifiable from reliable sources.  RasputinAXP  c 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Per Thatcher131's observation in the orignal discussion that "eon8 gets one hit on Google News and one hit on Lexis/Nexis; both are blog-related hits based solely on the claims of the website itself". --Gmaxwell 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, per Michael Snow. Deletion is simply not necessary. Tiamut 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  Greetings, Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm curious as to what aspects of your under 100 article edits have best prepared you to help us decide where deletion is needed on Wikipedia? --Gmaxwell 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  It was pointed out to me that my comment could be interpreted as intending to insult. That was not my intention, I welcome all newcomers. However, experience does have value, so It is my view not unfair to give greater weight to the views of the experienced, especially when considering votes rather than arguments. It appears likely to me that a substantial position of the previous participants were meatpuppets or at least wholly inexperienced with Wikipedia, which works against the argument that the deletion decision was against the will of the community. I don't want to see that confusion continue. If Tiamut has been editing anonymously for a while, I welcome him pointing that out. Sorry for any insult or confusion. --Gmaxwell 17:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well in that case User:Fred Bauder voted keep.Geni 18:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion per above. Naconkantari 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Per above also in my opinion if we overturn this decision this article could quickly turn into another GNAA which has been to AfD 18 times now. I don't really want to see AfD clogged up all that much. BJK 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn The site has been featured on many popular sites and at least one newspaper has written about it, this is one of the more notable internet fads/memes of 2006 and few wikipedia articles have as much references. Lapinmies 18:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Dunno I voted delete, but the Danish source makes me undecided now on if I would still vote delete. Ignoring the "votes" from anyone's name I don't recognize, I do not see consensus to delete. WP:WEB does not have enough force to warrant deletion for not meeting it ipso facto. My concerns about verifiability are somewhat allayed by the Politiken mention, so I do not think "WP:V trumps all" can really apply. I don't buy Eloquence's argument in regards to Slashdot. Wikipedia had paid editorial staff (LMS) and it has a community that actively fact-checks and posts corrections, can we cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia? Slashdot often posts rumors, speculation, and things that are plain wrong. Coming back two days later and saying "we fucked up" doesn't really fix that. There is also the thing like the christmas lights where they are duped completely. Who can forget that gibberish about Steve Mallett ripping off Digg and being a spammer? How about blogging being banned and "'toothing"? I don't believe in The Wisdom of Crowds, seems more like ignorance of the masses. In my opinion, that rules out slashdot and joystiq, which all they are doing is parroting what the site says (which archive.org does well enough) or parroting what people on forums are saying (we can link to forums too). Basically we have two sources, the website itself and it's operator and the Danish article, which afaik mostly an interview.
  • I think it is significant that the Danish Wikipedia reports "Eon8: Wikipedia har ikke nogen side med præcis dette navn." This is particularly significant because one AfD commentator who said it was mainstream news in Denmark claims on his user page to be a Danish speaker, yet apparently so far has not felt it worthwhile to write a stub for this topic in the Danish Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • w:da:Special:Statistics says "Der er i alt 93.956 sider i databasen. Dette tal indeholder "diskussion"-sider, sider om Wikipedia, omdirigeringssider og andre sider der sikkert ikke kan kaldes artikler. Hvis man udelader disse, så er der 45.004 sider som sandsynligvis er rigtige artikler." Which I'm going to go out on a limb and say it means 45,004 articles and 93,956 total pages. Their article on Rome is a stub even. Kotepho 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm missing something here. An editor who self-identifies as knowing Danish calls for a "Very strong keep" on the grounds that "it has been mentioned in mainstream media, the second-largest Danish newspaper Politiken had devoted the whole frontpage of the second section to talk about eon8..." and you wouldn't expect this editor to put something about it in the Danish Wikipedia? Why would the Danish Wikipedia's having 45,000 entries (i.e. roughly the same number as the Columbia encyclopedia) be a reason not to put it in? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If I knew Danish and contributed to the Danish wikipedia I would certainly be working on something in m:List of articles all languages should have (w:da:Wikipedia:Artikler vi bør have has mostly red links) instead of an article on some website. I do not see this as unreasonable, or how your line of argument makes one iota of sense. Kotepho 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Well then, let me be blunt. I don't believe Eon8 is well-known or important in Denmark. Yes, I believe that one newspaper published one feature about it, but I don't believe many Danes read that article or care about Eon8. Is it Danish water-cooler conversation? Are Danish late-night talk shows making jokes about it? I doubt it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we include articles that can be sourced weakly enough that they do not blatantly fail our content policies, just because they are popular? Articles with much better sourcing regularly die on AFD than this or The Game (game). If we want to be a real, reliable source of information we should require more than "well, it is borderline".

Can an AFD be closed based on the weight of arguments instead of numbers? The answer is obviously yes, in some cases. I don't think anyone really cares that 'votes' from (sock|meat)puppets and new users are regularly ignored. If 20 people vote keep, but one person points out it is a copyright violation, can it be deleted? If 20 people vote delete because of lack of sources, and one person finds mentions in the NYTimes and Washington Post, can it be kept? I say yes. While this closure is not as clear-cut as these other cases, I do not see it as being egregiously out of line. If they cannot, we should get rid of "NOT a democracy" and move AFD back to VFD. Thus, I do not think arguing this on procedural grounds has much merit.

In summary, deletion policy does not say that articles may only be deleted upon consensus, but rough consensus. This closure is completely within that spirit and letter. While you can argue that his decision was wrong, you cannot say that it was not permitted. We should encourage more admins to close in this fashion, and maybe we will actually have a decision on The Game (game), Gay Nigger Association of America, Slashdot subculture and Slashdot trolling that makes sense for an encyclopedia. (after an edit conflicts) Kotepho 18:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Gmaxwell, Kotepho, and others. Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: I don't like arguing over consensus, but I'm passionate about the tendency of web sites to generate web mentions to get web links to get web comments that get articles that get links that.... When the actual world uses a term, the world that doesn't disappear when there is a power outage, then we have verification. Otherwise, these are memorials on the dancing hamster song. "Memes" are only memes is they are verbs -- being spoken. They are not subjects of discussion until they ossify and show something beyond 'counters of signification in exchange.' At most, a "meme" is a dictionary subject. For it to be an appropriate encyclopedia entry, it has to cease to be a meme and become something with a history, a context, and an use. Geogre 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - If this is truly a phenomenon with worldwide significance, surely there will be more sources uncovered and academic papers and all sorts of such nonsense written about this Web site of global importance, right? Because if it's just a flash-in-the-pan blog phenomenon to be forgotten again in a month or so when the next big thing (tm) comes around, then it has no place in an encyclopedia. If the article's defenders are right, then in the coming months plenty that is verifiable will be written about this site, and we can revisit the decision then. If they're wrong, we'll never hear about Eon8 again except in some "VH1 I Love The 00s" meme countdown. If it even makes that. FCYTravis 18:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Sam Blanning and my own comments in the AfD. Even accepting the argument that it should be kept as an important internet meme, where is the evidence per V and RS that it was a meme? Real memes get talked about; what makes them a meme is that they breakout from wherever they started (for example, God help me, Numa numa, which I actually saw on CNN). Eon8 still gets <300 technorati hits, still only gets 1 Lexis/Nexis hit. Process serves policy, policy serves the encyclopedia. When process does not serve policy or the encyclopedia, it may be necessary to (carefully) set aside the process. And AfD is not a vote. Thatcher131 18:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You forget the last part: encyclopedia serves the people. If enough people want this article in Wikipedia then you should set aside your prejudices against the subject and abide by consensus.  Grue  19:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless it's unverifiable from reliable sources, of course. Or original research. Or non-neutral. Come to think of it, a lot of what "the people" want seems to be deliberately proscribed by policy - I wonder why that is? Just zis Guy you know? 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, and congratulate closing admin on refusing to treat AfD as a contest won by the side having the most accounts. Jkelly 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore article THIS is Wikipedia at its worst. ONE admin ignoring a community consensus and making a decision on his/her own. And do not hand me that "AfD is NOT a vote" argument either. This is no longer about Eon8 now, this is about abuse of power and the consequences it will have on Wikipedia. You want to know why a lot of people have given up and left Wiki? Look no further, THIS sort of situation is WHY and its about damn time someone stated the obvious. The system doesn't WORK. TruthCrusader 20:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Community consensus does not determine what goes in the encyclopedia. Encyclopedic policy does. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We are an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 21:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:AfD "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus." Noob cannon lol 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Verifiability, Reliable sources and What Wikipedia is not. Articles which fail these tests will be deleted regardless of any "consensus" because they fail to meet basic standards of encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • So? Nominating for AfD is still based on community consensus, and the policies you noted above are still to be interpreted by community consensus, or we wouldn't even be having this deletion review. Noob cannon lol 02:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • No, actually, those core policies are not always subject to interpretation by community consensus. The fundamental policies which make us an encyclopedia cannot be violated by any "community" decision, because this is, after all, an encyclopedia. If the "community" decided tomorrow that Fark was a reliable source, that would not make it one and such "interpretation" would be irrelevant. FCYTravis 02:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Which is subject to interpretation. Noob cannon lol 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
              • The community cannot interpret something to be what it is not. Fark by definition cannot be a reliable source, no matter how many people think it is. A forum post does not make something verifiable, no matter how many people think it does. That's not up for "interpretation." FCYTravis 18:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Claimed by its supporters to be an internet phenomenon, yet never mentioned in Wired. Claimed by its supporters to have gotten attention in the mainstream Danish press, yet has no article in the Danish Wikipedia. User:Bwithh reported "I just ran a Factiva international newswire, newspaper and magazine database search covering 20+ languages and over 10,000 sources for "eon8" and "eon8.com". The Danish Politiken article was literally the one and only hit." At most points in its history the article was full of unsourced material. "Unreferenced" tags were removed by an editor with the explanation "I'll remove the unreferenced template, as there really isn't any way to verify most of the information currently in the article, particularly since the site was modified completely (Removed, I would say)." In short, this argument is about whether Wikipedia must accept an article that does not and probably cannot meet any of Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS simply because a lot of people want to record their personal accounts of the matter. That is, they want Wikipedia to acknowledge that it is, de facto, merely a social networking site and a Web forum. A very messy AfD marred by extraordinarily large amounts of discussion from new users who did not attempt to invoke policy, but merely express their demand that the article be kept. Support sysop's judgement call. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  The article does actually exist: Hysteri: Hysteriet om en mystisk hjemmeside / Jens Lenler / 1824 words / 4 July 2006 / Politiken/ Danish / (c) Polinfo 2006, but I don't know Danish so I can only catch a few words and phrases. (It is the only hit in Factiva I get.) The LexisNexis hit is from a blog: Bite the Waxing Quintile: What the Christ is Eon8? / Kotaku / June 30, 2006 Friday 3:20 PM EST / Newstex Web Blogs with a disclaimer at the bottom saying Newstex doesn't even read the blogs they publish, much less fact-check them. Kotepho 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've no doubt the article exists. So does this New York Times article. That doesn't mean we should have a Wikipedia article about what happened in the ninth inning of the Philadelphia-San Diego game on July 5th. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, maybe I inferred wrongly from "...claim...<something unverified>." then "...claimed...Danish blah blah" that you disputed that it was mentioned in the Danish press. Kotepho 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• (2 edit conflict) Very much endorse deletion. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. The keep votes are overwhelmingly very, very poor (amounting to "it's real!" or "stop censuring us!") and this is exactly the kind of decision I would want the admin to make, rather than counting meatpuppet heads. Grandmasterka 21:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this page, protect it, and should not be created without a good reason. I'm very concerned on the safety because remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We're not democracy - we're an encyclopedia, as FCYTravis said. After we've done all the attempts we try to delete, endorse deletion and protect that page to prevent re-creation. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And what was the page crystal-balling? Noob cannon lol 23:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Before July 1st the article contained many statements such as "One popular theory is that it may be a countdown to the release or activation of a cyber virus." (After July 1st there was little crystal-gazing, but the article continued to accumulate many speculative and guesswork items, some editors inserting them and others removing them). The first AfD had a number of comments to the effect that it should be kept because "it's notable, it's a big deal on the internet, there's a lot of information on it, and most importantly, we're about to find out what it is in 23 hours" and "Keep at least until the timer reaches zero, and we can fully understand the purpose of the website. If it turns out to be something significant, deleting it would be a bad move." The second contained a number of comments along the lines of "Keep... until we can get good sources" and "Keep for now because it appears notable and it seems reasonable to expect that more secondary sources will be available in the future." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The same administrator(malo) who deleted the article on second nomination (being reviewed) five days in also speedily deleted the first creation when it was still being discussed in a nomination for AfD one or two days in. Noob cannon lol 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Proto closed the second AFD and deleted the article, not malo (who has speedied the article before and did close the first afd). Kotepho 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, I guess I looked at the first nom twice. Noob cannon lol 01:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Some closing thoughts.--Eloquence* 00:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, fails WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure there was a consensus that it fails WP:WEB. Arguments that ignore or trivialize the relevant guidline are properly ignored. (Unlike aguments which suggest the guideline is inapplicable in the instant case, but those weren't made here.) Eluchil404 02:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion it fails WP:V and WP:WEB. Guidelines and policies can't just be 'put aside' because of other peoples opinions and interests. The arguments on the AfD seemed pretty poor and appeared people only wanted it kept because they speculated and enjoyed it. Basically fancruft.--Andeh 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This just didn't make it into notability, and certainly won't now. See you all at the next Meme of the Week. JDoorjam Talk 06:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A Slashdot mention and an article buried inside a Danish newspaper? Come on. - Merzbow 08:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "...devoted the whole frontpage of the second section to talk about eon8, and there was also a small picture of the website on the frontpage of the newspaper." does not sound like it was "buried" to me. Kotepho 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure An admin is perfectly entitled (even *required*) to close debates based on weight of arguements, not weight of numbers. Consensus is not simply "majority opinion" as Wikipedia:Consensus has an explicit assumption that all sides are persuing a solution "consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies", so an outcome inconsistant with policy can not be described as a consensus. Regards, MartinRe 09:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure - there were no arguments presented in the AfD by those wanting to keep the article that asserted any encyclopediac value. Strange how the Afd and this discussion are far more extensive than the Eon8 website itself --Peripitus (Talk) 10:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - per Peripitus and Geogre. Kimchi.sg 11:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn Wikipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it ruled by the administrators. I find using the reason "while those who favored deletion were in severe minority they had the better arguments" in such a big discussion problematic, to say the least. At worst this would have been a "non consensus" (as there were plenty supporters of either side) with default keep. I reccomend escalation to mediation. CharonX/talk 12:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, what you find "problematic" is exactly the way WP:AFD works. The closing admin is supposed to consider the balance of the arguments. It's not a vote. Numbers help, but a bunch of people mindlessly voting "keep" are likely to be ignored if there is a strong and valid argument as to why the article violates policies. FCYTravis 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per The Epopt. SushiGeek 12:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  Any reason?--Andeh 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  Don't know. Why do you care? SushiGeek 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse, despite having voted to keep Many of the keep votes seemed a little thin on reasoning. My own vote was based on the fact that if there was as much as a fuss as was claimed, the sources would soon arrive, and therefore the article should be kept until it became clear that no sources would be coming. It seems, though, that a clear majority of the comments with reasoning behind them were to delete. I think it might be wise to relist after about a month, once the apparent furore has died down, to see if the article has become verifiable by then (although it's starting to look less and less likely). --ais523 13:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The basic reason for deletion was that it failed WP:V. The right way to defeat such arguments is to demonstrate that something can be verfied using WP:RS (in English strongly preferred, this is the English Wikipedia). In all the arm waving, both on the AFD and here above this opinion, nobody has. The closing admin is to be congratulated to reviewing the reasoning, trying to appropriately downweight the contributions of new users, and closing on the weight of the evidence. Those who wanted to keep should take a look at WP:FORGET and try to write an article that measures up to those standards: 1) find reliable sources, 2) forget everything you know, 3) write an article using only those reliable sources. GRBerry 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. What the hell... two improperly closed debates. The first one by the guy who started it, the 2nd one by someone who agrees with the delete arguments rather than someone neutral. This is totally ridiculous. Of course, the deletion won't be overturned because this page actually respects consensus (we'll end up about split down the middle, give or take). When did Wikipedia because so... elitist? Redwolf24 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You make the argument that more experienced editors have voted delete. Well, looking through it, the ones who have been around so long that I recognize them, I see Randy Johnston, Kookykman, myself, Eloquence, Messedrocker, Fred Bauder, The Epopt (oh hey, arbcom members and Eloquence!) on keep, and Stevertigo on delete. That's literally everyone I recognize now (which shows I'm out of touch with Wikipedia). Is saying that more experienced users said delete really valid? Redwolf24 (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It depends what you consider "experienced". You seem to consider "experienced" to mean people you recognise. I considered it to mean anyone with more than 100 edits or so (and do you think going through some 220 sets of user contributions was fun?). I guess that makes one of us elitist. Proto///type 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the point was deciding what users are experienced and what aren't is subjective. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
        • There is subjective and then there is intentionally being dense for the purpose of disruption. Are you honestly suggesting that a 100 article edit bar is too high to qualify an editor as experienced? --Gmaxwell 00:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Was there really that many people voting with less than 100 edits? :-/ I always argued the protection function should be based off edits, not time spent owning the account (forces editors to make some good contributions and get a feel of the things, rather than just getting an account and waiting). Was there really an actual consensus to delete among editors with 100+ edits? Redwolf24 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I find the 'experience' issue a red herring. What matters is the quality of the arguments. Given an Arbitrator with a weak argument and a new editor with a good one, I would give the new editor's opinion more weight. (And with this discussion, that situation isn't entirely hypothetical.) --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the closing administrator was right in evaluating the provided rationale for keeping and deleting. (Liberatore, 2006). 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I believe the arguments were equal, and there was no consensus. Please restore this article, and my faith in Wikipedia. Themindset 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion; the arguments for deleting it were mostly that it clearly failed notability and verifiability guidelines and policies. The arguments against were mostly vague handwaving, such as "Caused a lot of buzz on the Internet" without addressing the failure to meet the guidelines. Jll 11:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, after due reflection. "I've heard of this" does not amount to verifiability, or formal evidence of singificance. This is yet another nine-days wonder; let's have an article if anyone still cares in a year's time (and if there are good sources by then). Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore to final edit If it failed notability, how come an absurd amount of people voted on it? Also, the admin's choice (I suppose) seemed a bit...biased. ("arguments for deletion outweigh the (quote, unquote) "arguments" for keeping".) Eon8 responds 240K hits without ytmnds, the word blog, or wikis. Eon8 was clearly known, the website showing 140k unique visits. This is extremely worthy if being in such a project. Also not for a book, people should have something to tell them Eon8 was something on the Internet that turned out to be an experiment that I don't believe has been done before. The delete arguments were strong, but the keep were still on track and not sock-puppeted. It should be given another admin review, or at least given no consensus. Userpie 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - whether it's pertinent or note, a note that the domain, www.eon8.com, is now for sale. As the sole use of the site was to create interest where no content existed, I would suggest that allowing Wikipedia to provide this with any kind of publicity is allowing Wikipedia to be used to increase the value of what was nothing but a publicity stunt. Proto///type 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Wikipedia policy states that a high (or low) number of people participating in Deletion Review or Vote for Deletion is not an argument for (or against) retention. Thunderbunny 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, a lot of excellent editors "voted" keep, but so did a lot of apparent sockpuppets. Also, AfD is not supposed to be a vote. Finally, the arguments for keeping were weaker. Many of those recommending that the article be kept pointed out that the website could not have news mentions and other signs of notability because it was too new and somehow thought that this was an argument for keeping rather than deleting. A topic should be notable before inclusion in an encyclopedia. We should not create articles and then wait and see and we certainly should not attempt to aid in establishing notability by creating an article. -- Kjkolb 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The decision, after discounting the anonymous and suspiciously new users, was within reasonable admin discretion. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Image_talk:Canada_flag_large.png

I'd like to have this talk page unearthed, as it may contain important discussion of the legal use of the Flag of Canada on wikimedia projects. It is referenced by Image:Flag of Canada.svg, and the other reference is a canadian government website which implies the flag is non-commerical use only. Such would be bad for the fact that the flag is used in a lot of places, including user pages. For this, I think the content here is worthy of being undeleted and archived somewhere if it contains such discussions. Kevin_b_er 06:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's just some discussion about the proper share of red to use and talk about protecting the image to avoid vandalism as far as I can see... --Sherool (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we should unearth it

• Restore or copy/paste to userspace - there is no point in having a talk page hanging around with no page to go with it, but you can ask any administrator to restore it or copy/paste it to your user space. If you find it useful, you can reference it or copy/paste it to the new talk page. BigDT 13:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete somewhere (probably userspace, per BigDT), Merge history (per Eugene) the talk page did include some useful information for reference purposes, so I don't see too much harm in undeleting this. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge history with Image talk:Flag of Canada.svg; the two pages are nearly identical, as the .svg talk page was copied from the .png talk page. There is no content on the deleted page that is not on the .svg talk page. Eugène van der Pijll 20:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is so, I this is meaningless. Thank you. Kevin_b_er 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have merged the edit histories anyway, so you can now see them; as I said, I don't think there's anything spectacular in there. -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)