Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 19: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:38, 20 November 2006

< November 18	November 20 >

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

19 November 2006

Category:Stub templates

Category:Stub templates (edit | talk | history | links | logs) — (AfD)

The article was speedy deleted while I was editing the Category talk:Stub templates even with though there was a {{hangon}} message placed by its creator. See that talk page for reasons to reconsider. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The first speedy made sense, empty for 4 days is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. But you can't speedy something for reposting of deleted material unless said material went through the respective XfD discussion. Especially when it was speedied because nothing was IN it, because maybe there will be things put in. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. FYI, the page could not have been empty for 4 days, since it was created on 17 November 2006. I keep track of the pages I create and there was three template pages put in the this category right after it was created. See this history entry for proof. The Speedy deletion message was posted today as was a note informing me of it in my talk page. I just had the time to put the {{hangon}} message (as suggested in the deletion template) so I have the time to explain myself. Why all that rush? This is very frustrating for users that want to improve the WP and try follow the procedures. I keep getting the same arguments on the fact that the category was previously deleted. Again, please do read my own reasons for creating the page and tell me why my own arguments are not valid instead of bringing back references on an old debate that was held by 3 users. I did my homework, please be kind and follow proper procedures. Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 00:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The first deletion was back in March 2006, by a different user. That is the one that was done for being an empty category. GRBerry 02:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment OH!.. My mistake. Thanks for clearing that up. It's pretty hard to tell since the history is deleted with the article. ;-) Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 03:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment This is where the deletion log comes in handy ;) --Sherool (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Ghost baptism

This page was deleted with almost no discussion. I didn't see the page before deletion, but this is a well-known idea in Pentecostal Christianity. (I think it's completely daft, but still.) A Google search suggests that it deserved a better review. Bpmullins | Talk 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article as it was failed CSD G1 in my opinion and that of others, so I closed the discussion as WP:SNOW Delete, as it was nonsense. I endorse deletion, but I'm not concerned about it being restored and relisted on AfD, if it really deserves to go through the process. The article was a sermon, typed out in full (as such, failed WP:NPOV too!). M a rtinp23 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article, as it was, was TERRIBLE. Write a better one and put that up, don't ask for the one there to be undeleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid G1 and G12 (copyvio), WP:SNOW doesn't even come into it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid Speedy G1, no AfD was necessary. Any recreation needs to conform to WP standards and policies to avoid another Speedy. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion as one of the non-admins that got to see the article. It was G1-patent nonsense. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Fails multiple policies. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Some kind of sermon, without proper context or explanation. The idea probably warrants either an article or a mention at Baptism, but it cannot be brought back as it was. As an example, here are the final two lines: "He will come out of the womb! To be numbered among the blood-washed saints!". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Also, please don't write a new one. Seriously. The discussion would be at baptism, where the concept of "baptism by the Spirit" is already covered. I.e. we shouldn't be multiplying mediocre articles at every denomination's term for central tenets of Christianity, when we should have a single excellent article. Pentecostal and charismatic views can be accomodated in the pages on the beliefs without acting as one more article to watchlist to avoid sermonizing or chauvinism. We've got a lot of iffy stuff already. When I find it, I try to correct it, but I can't guess all the names people are going to have for the rites. Geogre 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion G1.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Freedom and Truth

This article was suddenly and unexpectedly deleted yesterday, in the midst of an unresolved debate over the copyright status of the English translation of the original Hungarian text. I understand the copyvio concerns but no conclusion had been reached one way or the other so the deletion seems unfounded to me K. Lastochka 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, if the issue of copyright is unresolved then we need to err on the side of assuming there is a copyright problem. If the copyright issue is resolved then the article can be restored/recreated. --pgk 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, this is a single paragraph of introduction and a lengthy quote from a speech - and absolutely nothing else. So even if the copyright issue were fixed, it would belong in Wikisource not here. Nor is the phrase "for freedom and truth" evident anywhere other than the article title, it's not in the quoted text. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I understand pgk's reasoning. Guy's reasoning, on the other hand, seems flimsy to me. This is a historic document and an important part of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. While I admit that the 56 article would not suffer enormously if it were gone, it certainly is enhanced by its presence.

About the copyvio--if a Wikipedia editor were to make his/her own translation from the Hungarian original, would the Wiki editor's translation have any copyvio problems? K. Lastochka 23:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe a straight translation, or even a paraphrase, would still violate the coyright. Fan-1967 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Wikipedia is for articles about a thing, never the thing itself. Primary documents go at Wikisource, if they're not copyrighted. In other words, the document, by its proper title, would be discussed in an article, not reiterated. Encyclopedias are discursive. Geogre 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete - The article is about an historical event which contains a letter. That letter is uncontroversially in the public domain. It may also belong in Wikisource, but the issue at hand is its inclusion in the Wikipedia. The salient question is whether or not a translation of that public domain text retains public domain status. If so, then the article should be undeleted forthwith. If not, then the article may be at least recreated using a released translation from the original (public domain) source. I think some who have not seen the article in question may incorrectly infer from the above that the article is only the block of text, whereas in reality it is an important historical event, linking to the FA article Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and to István Bibó. In fact, it may be useful to relist the article so that those discussing it may first understand it. István 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gear4music

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gear4music.com

Changed article radically so it is factual only but cannot remember exactly how as it was deleted without comments about the changes, edited article format read similar to info about dolphin music in wikipedia. Thanks Sushmasspace 12:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion 80% is copy-and-paste identical (other than the center align), the rest is actually less encyclopedic than the first article. The AfD and .com article wasn't listed until now, so I'm relisting this. ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, valid AfD - nothing to see, move along. - Mailer Diablo 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - valid AfD and clsoure.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The request is for the recreated article Gear4music. Repost or rewrite? My opinion is above, just to clarify what the request is about. ~ trialsanderrors 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anax Imperator (band)

Anax Imperator's page shouldn't have been deleted, as the band conforms to WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" pt. 5 and 7. The band is listed with half a page in the norwegian pop & rock encyclopedia, and was a major contributor to the industrial & goth scene in Norway.

Endorse deletion, will change to relist if you provide a source for this half a page. Relist, I just wanted to be sure the encyclopedia was not a hoax. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk pop- og rockleksikon The norwegian encyclopedia of rock and pop music, ISBN 82-92489-09-6. Anax Imperator is reviewed on pages 22-23. The entry has also been made available online. -- Hba 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion, valid AFD. Naconkantari 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The above-mentioned source seems reliable and was not considered in the AfD, and the debate seems closer to a no-consensus than a clear delete, to me. (Note: I read the "comment" as supporting a keep.) I feel a relisting to generate further consensus might be more productive in this case than simply rewriting the article with the new source in place (possibly triggering a new AfD). Shimeru 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the strength of arguments (or lack thereof), rather than just head counting, I thought it was a pretty clear delete at the time. --W.marsh 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize, I didn't mean to imply that you'd made an error in process. To clarify, I agree with your assessment while no sources were put forth, but I feel the source mentioned above (which was not in evidence at the time of the AfD) changes, in retrospect, the weight of the comments. Shimeru 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, sound arguments for deletion (obscure, self-published, reportedly abysmal, short-lived, no reliable sources, clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC) not refuted. WP:ILIKEIT seemed to be about it for the keeps. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, obscure and likely not RS sources. Doesn't explain why band is notable - it has a list of CDs but nothing as to the success or new ideas presented. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ozarks Herbalist

I deprodded this, someone speedied it anyway. I think it's a notable topic worthy of inclusion, and there was a nice start to an article there. Un focused 18:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regretted overturn and list on AfD. It really, really, should be deleted, but a speedy was inappropriate. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion, valid speedy. Naconkantari 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regretted overturn and list on AfD per Amarkov. Was speedy-tagged, detagged and prodded, deprodded and source-tagged, re-speedy-tagged and speedily deleted (by different editors) all in the course of one day. ~ trialsanderrors 19:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn May or may not pass AfD, but there certainly was enough notability in the article at time of deletion that it shouldn't have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A disputed prod should go to AfD, not be speedied. Shimeru 21:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Should have gone to AfD. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - has some books and newspaper columns. We need to examine whether these publications are notable enough. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and Rice

Overturn because of the following reasons

Inconsistence in article version put for deletion and the revised version which removed a large deal of POV and OR.

Here is the new version:

User:Valoem/deletion review hopefuls/Chicken and Rice (new)

Here is the old version:

User:Valoem/deletion review hopefuls/Chicken and Rice (old)

The article was deleted under WP:OR, however note that all POV references have been removed also, I cited an additional 7 sources establishing notability thereby removing WP:OR.

Here was the bulk of my argument from before:

- - 1. Chicken and Rice is an integral part of student life at New York University. It is a major hot spot for food among NYU students. [1]
  - 2. The stabbing involved was directly related to the food served by the vendor. The lines can grow so long that a person stab another person for "cutting in line". Name me another food stand that can do this. [2]
  - 3. Chicken and Rice has won a notable award from a public service of New York City. It is has been cited as "uniting the Muslim community from the tri-state area and beyond in their search for halal food" [3]
  - 4. As both a Wikipedia editor with a good history and a customer of Chicken and Rice, I can be a primary source to this event. All of the information on the page is true minus the POV comments. The food itself is amazing and is more notable than even the Grease Trucks and can generate unbelievable lines. [4] I live in Princeton, New Jersey and have travelled countless times to NYC just for a platter. Many of my peers have done the same. I have cited all the claims.

Other issues:

1. There are also several issues within the AfD that lead me to believe that this article was unfairly prosecuted. Firstly, I was accused of votestacking. This is hardly the case. I asked for neutral opinions from editors (except Easyas12c who was discounted quickly because there was no argument). Bwithh stated that I was votestacking by bring up this second example [5]. This is a clear example of asking for another's opinion and is no different from this:[6].
2. There was one vote from a new user: User:Simpleerob, that user mentioned a fair point and was not stacking. Jaranda clearly stated that his vote was discounted. According to WP don't bite the newb his or her argument should be included as well. The second user who's vote might also have been discounted was Killerhun00. He is not a new user, but Jaranda mention in the former AfD that "some of the very new users" were there and he seems to be the least experienced user other than Simpleerob.
3. Based off the arguments in the AfD the article should have at least been no consenus. A simliar notable food cart Hallo Berlin survived the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallo Berlin. Valoem ^talk 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. You did not ask for neutral opinions, you told people "I am looking for inclusionist opinions on this AfD, for an article that should not be deleted." Asking for neutral opinions is "Hey, could you weigh in on this?" While it's very nice that they do good things, that does not mean they are notable enough for an article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and your revised version still has major POV problems, and a few OR problems. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was one person and that person left no opinion, however many unstacked votes were also excluded. That is why this is put for deletion review. Also since Wikipedia is not a vote it revolves around arguments. View the article's debate. Chicken and Rice has established notability and the reason for deletion as OR as been disproved. Valoem ^talk 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No it hasn't been. You still have OR and POV problems. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I found 2 more POV sentences and cleared them there should be none now. I would also like to note that notability was already established in the AfD. The reason for deletion was OR so notability is not a question.Valoem ^talk 17:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - What are you talking about? Notability was not established in the AfD. I don't see ANY delete votes that don't say or imply "This is non-notable". -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Reads like an ad. Half the article cannot be verified using reliable sources and the article uses weasel words galore to verify it self. Delete per WP:NOR" that was the reason for nomination not lack of notability. The sources I have added also cites the claims of notability. Also Hallo Berlin had passed the AfD and many similar arguments were mentioned including things of the same source. Valoem ^talk 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hallo Berlin WON an award. This place ranked fourth. Big difference there. And the nomination reason is not necessarily the only reason why it was deleted. By the way, notability is not just sources. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 18:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of some hundred thousand carts only 4 can be finalist. The food they serve is unique per citations also the article involving the stabbing states that it was directly cause by the food. Other citations also claim that the stand has a much larger following then Hallo Berlin. Valoem ^talk 18:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Even with if the "votestacking" votes were to be counted, the arguments to delete outweigh the arguments to keep, IMHO. Although the we're only supposed to consider here if the closure was improper, or if new evidence has been submitted to that would effect the decision, in fact, I agree with the closer's decision. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new evidence has been established therefore many of the vote deletes were in regard to the old article not the new one. Valoem ^talk 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a significant difference in regard the delete !votes. The arguments still seem appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe you are refering to WP:OR and POV, I believe I removed both if you could please cite where those things remain I would be more than happy to remove it. If you look at the differences between the old version and new version you probably will notice considerable cleaning. Valoem ^talk 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am the initial nominator of the AfD in question. Hence I am officially being neutral here. First let me make it clear that I still stand behind my nomination. I am not withdrawing it. However, there are things more important to me than being right and there are things more important to me than having one article deleted. What happened was that I was going through the articles tagged as original research because that backlog needs to cleaned up. When I first discovered this article it was in a miserable condition. It had not been worked on and read like an ad. Also most of the article was not verifiable at the time. Therefor it was heavily tagged and a clear cut candidate for deletion. I am not going to go into the whole mess surrounding the debate. It got bad and has been resolved. However, having looked through the related AfD's and considering that the verdict was based largely if not entirely on my original arguments for deletion I do believe that new evidence in the shape of the revised and sourced article has emerged. As I said, I stand by my nomination also regarding the revised version but what is more important to me is that decisions are being made consistently and not based on who put in the most effort in one specific AfD. Therefor I support the nominator's wish for a second review of this article keeping in mind the work that has been put into cleaning the article and the fact that related articles have not been deleted. AfD is not a flawless process and neither are editors especially in heated situations. I could get into a long talk about opinions on AfD as a process but I will refrain from that here since this isn't a debate about AfD in general. I hope you will take these points into consideration when you make your decisions. Integrity and consistency in the decisions being made is more important to me than being right. MartinDK 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion can't see that this addresses the concerns of the original AFD, still seems to read like advertising copy or a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article. --pgk 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, no consensus. This was a well-written, referenced article that asserted notability. Everyking 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Amarkov, Arthur Rubin and Pgk. Not only was the AfD handled properly, but the new arguments here don't even make sense. (A bunch of food carts on 53rd and 6th are an "integral part of student life" at a university fifty blocks south? I don't think so.) The votestacking seals the deal; keep deleted and salt if necessary. --Aaron 22:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - The AfD followed procedure and was closed properly; nothing else is relevant here. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wondering where the idea that the Urban Justice Center (arranger of the Vendy awards) is a "public service" of NYC comes from. It's a private, non-governmental charity and advocacy group. [7] . I was named as an issue in the nom so I'll abstain from stating a preference here. Bwithh 22:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. A food cart? You are joking, aren't you? Or is the guy running it Jamie Oliver? Guy (Help!) 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it (see Hallo Berlin afd). Mind you, I think Jamie Oliver would want to shut the foodcart down and force everyone to eat organic salads instead or something Bwithh 00:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out once again the AfD for Hallo Berlin. That cart has equal notability and was kept. Secondly this is not the AfD. We should evalulate the article in its current form in a new AfD, therefore we should at least considered a Relist. Even the nominator himself suggested that previous AfD may not have justly view the article in its current state. Finally since some people are turning this into an AfD I have a few comment regarding the article itself. "A food cart? You are joking, aren't you?" how does that argument hold any ground. Per Simpleerob, anything can hold notability a food cart that has established it is no different from a person who has established it. I was not the person who created the article. This article was also under heavy editing when it was up. Valoem ^talk 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, the "minimum" is "Endorse deletion" otherwise every single article submitted to DRV would be at least relisted at AFD, so all afd'd articles would be submitted to AFD repeatedly, leading to general argumentum ad nauseam and the collapse of society. I notice that a single purpose account editor has added new text to the article. This is out of process and is eligible for a new afd, if that's what you mean. Bwithh 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I am well aware of that, I was merely suggesting that in order to reevalute this article which it deserves we should at least consider a Relist, I reworded it so it is less confusing. Valoem ^talk 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - notability not established.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro pacciani

My support of Alessandro's position is based on the fact (i.e., my opinion) you can easy find more informations about him on Google or checking the www.imdb.com website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsuounit (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion, vanispamcruftisement created by WP:SPA Alexartinc (talk · contribs). Blatant promotion, no credible assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: The language was pure advertising copy. The subject was a director of commercials. IMDB has to cover everyone. We look for notable and encyclopedic subjects. Geogre 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. - Mailer Diablo 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fact and opinion are two very different beasts. If there was some hint that he had directed a particularly famous or innovative commercial, perhaps he cam come back in. If the article was WP:VSCA, then it's not coming back. Chris talk back 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Day

Deleted without AfD as blatant nonsense.

new york times Jan 7 2006, THE SATURDAY PROFILE; Nearly 100, LSD's Father Ponders His 'Problem Child -- Bicycle day noted as named date.
maps bulletin - Also in print, widely distributed, scientific journal. The first LSD trip, April 19, 1943, is also widely known as “Bicycle Day” because of Hofmann’s wild bike ride from his lab to his home through the streets of Basel.
erowid established resource for psychoactive plants and chemicals and related issues. Bicycle day noted in Hoffmann's summary.
Island Views E-Zine #2 - Bicycle Day Commemorative Issue
Many local, often less publicized events taking place on April 19th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here (talk • contribs)

Overturn. I'm assuming here that the article there was really about what you claim and not something stupid. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article didn't cite any of those sources... but it was a basic description of the topic. It listed one source, an offline book from 1981. --W.marsh 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, that's good. Now I don't feel guilty about possibly wanting to recreate nonsense. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Proper sourcing needs to be provided. Also its unclear from sources given what actually happens on this day, with the exception of the localized Santa Cruz link. Is it a day people say is celebrated - but nothing actually generally happens aside from people dropping acid who usually drop acid anyway? Only a couple of mentions in books on google books[8], neither of which explains what happens on this day or provides anything of substance. If nothing substantive emerges about what happens on this day, I would recommend a merge to Albert Hoffman Bwithh 07:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The events I've seen advertised (by flyer, unverfiable) involve midday bikerides, without any implied psychedelic state. Overturn would be appreciated, after which we can add above sources and additional showing activities. ∴ here…♠ 08:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: Passing mentions of a freakout commemoration. It's not a transit protest, but an informal hippie-based acid day. There are lots of these things. Scenesters have celebrated them one way or another for a long time, but they're not organized, not defined, and so nothing but a fact. The authors could go to the date article and add the accidental ingestion of LSD and the fact that some people have celebrated it since. Geogre 13:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD. I'm not sure that it will pass AfD, but it doesn't quite seem to be a speedy candidate in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, send to AfD Readable, sourced, edit history since 2004, possible hoax → Not a speedy candidate. Might go up in smoke at AfD, but that's not for us to decide. ~ trialsanderrors 19:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, send to AfD. Not that I can see the original article, but the term seems legit even if the article sucked. Hand it off to AfD and let them nuke it. --Aaron 23:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, send to AfD. Given a lack of cites in the original, the Speedy may have been proper at the time. However, with the possibility of more extensive sourcing, this should go through the AfD process. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've redirected to History of LSD. If there is some WP:V information, it can go in there. Much of the rest sounds like nothing out of the ordinary. Bunch of acid trippers celebrating with an acid trip. Chris talk back 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 *'''Endorse deletion''' - notability not established.'''[[User:Blnguyen|Blnguyen]]'''  ([[User talk:Blnguyen|bananabucket]]) 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-====[[Playboy Online]]/[[Playboy Cyber Club]]====
-Herein, I attempt to shed new light on articles that have been deleted and reposted multiple times in the past. See, [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_22#Playboy_Cyber_Girl]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club]]
-There has certainly been extensive debate about the various articles which I will lump together under the title [[Playboy Online]].  Most important among these is the [[Playboy Cyber Club]] page.  As always the primary guideline in deletion/undeletion review is "would Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia with the article restored" as per [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]].
-Basically, the debate has revolved around [[WP:CRUFT]] and [[WP:N]].  Although, I think some well intended wikipedians have taken time to make numerous extensive related pages, they certainly appear to have gone a bit overboard.  The main problem is that the result of the debates has been to throw out everything related to Playboy Online.  Thus, my request is that the following pages be restored
-:* [[Playboy Online]],
-:* [[Playboy Cyber Club]]
-:*[[Cyber Girl of the Year]]
-I believe that [[Playboy Cyber Girl]] should be merged into [[Playboy Cyber Club]].  Oddly, the way the article is written it seems that [[Playboy Cyber Club]] is the same thing as [[Playboy Online]] or Playboy.com.  I am not sure if there is a free portion of Playboy.com.  At one time there was, but that may not be the case any longer.
-I affirm deletion of
-:*[[Cyber Girl of the Week]]
-:*[[Cyber Girl of the Month]]
-:*[[Coed of the Week]]
-:*[[Playboy Employee of the Month]]
-The first point of contention is that the main reason for the deletion of all related articles was cruft.  Obviously, based on the response to the AfD they seem to have been given just and equitable treatment.  However, I contend on two bases:
-:1. Cruft is misapplied. The first sentence of the 16:15, 1 November 2006 version of  [[Wikipedia:Fancruft]] says “Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.”  I think everyone is well aware that Playboy Enterprises Inc is a huge multimillion dollar business of which Playboy Online is a very significant part.  The business has 3 main business units (Entertainment, Publishing and Licensing).  About 60% of the revenues for the 9 month period ending in September 30th came from Entertainment [http://biz.yahoo.com/e/061108/pla10-q.html].  The online business accounts for about 25% of this revenue or about 15% of the Playboy Enterprises revenue.  It accounts for more than 50% as much revenue as the traditional publishing segment.  Note that Playboy Online produces about $50 million in revenue (annualized from 9 month data).  I do not consider a $50 million dollar annual business something that should be referred to as of “importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans”.  In fact, this number means that hundreds of thousand of people use the business and probably millions more who, like myself, are not paying customers care about information about the business unit as investors, financial scholars, or fans of the product and personalities the business unit promotes.  Cruft designation is an abuse of process and may fall under the auspices of [[WP:CIVIL]].
-:Personally, I am a scholar of financial economics and have made many contribution to Wikipedia.  In addition to having created several biographies of notable business persons (including [[August Busch IV]], [[William Wrigley III]], [[Seymour H. Knox I]], & [[Donald Trump, Jr.]]), I have created several templates for important business entities.  Among those relevant to the discussion here are [[:Template:Anheuser-Busch Companies|Anheuser-Busch]], [[:Template:Trump|Trump]], [[:Template:Wrigley|Wrigley]], [[:Template:Federated|Federated]].  Notice that in each case the template is a useful addition to wikipedia because of the number of business lines that have separate articles.  Most major business enterprises have business units or business lines that have separate articles.  There is some misconception that Playboy online is some minor business used only by a few people who are
-:[[User_talk:TonyTheTiger#re:_your_Content_Review_request]] note that I was mistakenly reminded that although it might be important to have an article for [[Ford Motor Company]] it is not important to have an article for [[Cleveland Engine Plant No. 19]].  However, I believe it is important to have an article for any of their [[:Template:Ford Motor Company|Business units]] that accounts for 15% of their revenue.  I do believe Wikipedia is better for having articles for the separate articles for the separate entities.  I do believe wikipedia would be better for having a [[Playboy Online]] article.
-:There may be some dissenting opinion because the second line of the Federated template mentioned above reads<br>
-'''[[Bloomingdale's ]]''' | '''[[Macy's]]''' ([[Macy's East|East]] | [[Macy's Florida|Florida]] | [[Macy's Midwest|Midwest]] | [[Macy's North|North]] | [[Macy's Northwest|Northwest]] | [[Macy's South|South]] | [[Macy's West|West]] | macys.com)<br>
-:The confusion is that no one has created a macy.com article so why should Playboy Online get a separate article.  By the way, I believe if someone were to contribute a macy.com article it would probably not be contested for either cruft or notability and would probably remain a part of wikipedia.  As I understand the macy.com business, they basically provide home delivery of the same offerings as the other business lines.  Playboy online, offers extremely different fare from the more well-known physical publication.  Anyone who wants to understand the playboy business needs to understand the offerings of Playboy Online.
-:2. The process is unfair in this case due ot the sociopolitical stigma associated with the subject matter.  I believe that the way past debates about the topic have gone those in support of articles seem to be notably absent.  Even the article creators and prominent contributing editors seem to be lacking from the debate about the AfDs.  This indicates that the something makes people supportive of the article hesitant to speak up for fear of being viewed as socially depraved, immoral, amoral, looney, emotionally imbalanced and possibly heretical.  The stigma associated with supporting their business is probably akin to supporting businesses that invest in South Africa, or businesses that are environmentally unfriendly.  Regardless, of whether you want your loved one or your children to be using the service, it exists and as an encyclopedia wikipedia should account for it.
-The remaining question involves the extent to which the subject matter should be incorporated into wikipedia.
-At this time, I affirm deletion of the Monthly and Weekly awards based on the prevalent views of similar subjects.  Major League Baseball is the only one of the 4 major sports to have an article for its players of the month ([[Player of the Month).  None of the major league sports include articles for their players of the week.  All 4 major league sports include articles for their annual awards: [[Baseball awards]], [[NFL#Awards]], [[NBA#Awards]], [[National Hockey League awards]].  I would retain [[Cyber Girl of the Year]] on this basis.
-In addition, those who believe Cyber Girls are minor league or ameteur Playmates should note that articles exist for baseball’s [[Minor League Player of the Year Award]] and [[Golden Spikes Award]].  Additionally, football has a [[Heisman Trophy]] award (although I make no statement as to the comparable notability of a Heisman winner and a CGOY).  Basketball has the [[John R. Wooden Award]].  Hockey has the [[Hobey Baker Award]].  Basically, what I am saying is that annual awards are recognized as noteworthy.  Again, let me be clear.  I am not saying CGOY is as notable as being a player of the year in a major college sport, but it falls under the same precedent.
-Furthermore, I believe it is difficult to determine the usefulness of the following templates: [[:Template:2000 Cyber Girls]], [[:Template:2001 Cyber Girls]], [[:Template:2002 Cyber Girls]], [[:Template:2003 Cyber Girls]], [[:Template:2004 Cyber Girls]], [[:Template:2005 Cyber Girls]], [[:Template:2006 Cyber Girls of the Week]].  I think they should be reevaluated.  Short term support for this six year old idea will probably die in a decade or two when the templates would clutter pages with several hundreds of name links.  I think categories may be better in the long run.  Therefore, I would tend to be against undeletion of the templates, but I believe that the Cyber Girl Categories ([:Category:Playboy Cyber Club]], [[:Category:Playboy Cyber Girls]], and [[:Category:Playboy Coeds of the Week]]) should remain as they do. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-**'''Endorse deletion''' 1) I don't see how there is so much to say about the online version of Playboy that couldn't be said satisfactorily in the main [[Playboy]] or [[Playboy Enterprises]] articles. 2)I also don't see that there's any "socio-political stigma" here... Playboy is very mild compared to a lot of stuff on wikipedia. 3) Playboy Enterprises is a major US porn company... but  since you're comparing it to Ford Motors (!), lets be clear that it's really not ''that'' big as a corporation (US$400mm market cap is a small cap company; compared with $16bn+ for Ford) 4) I don't see how cruft is a breach of [[WP:CIVIL]]. The cruft case was made against the article about a subdomain of the main playboy website plus the exhaustive articles for every single girl. The main playboy online article was merged with the playboy article in a separate process. 5) I'm not seeing the comparability of Cybergirl of the Year with national college sportsperson of the year awards. 6)  As for the categories and girl pages.... Didn't realize those categories hadn't been deleted. Also, the various cybergirls in the categories still need to be evaluated for possible afd (issue was raised in the main cybergirls afd). Gurgle. [[User:Bwithh|Bwithh]] 07:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-:*Bwith, I appreciate that you took the time to respond although you did not really seem to pay attention to what I said.  Here are my responses to your numbered points 1.) If you read the [http://biz.yahoo.com/e/061108/pla10-q.html link] that I sent you to you would note that Playboy Enterprises is like many other conglomerates with various business lines.  It is normal in wikipedia as I have noted by way of reference to my template creations that you also seem not to have read either to create articles for separate major business lines.  It should be apparent from looking at the link that separate articles should exist for  [[Playboy Entertainment]] (with separate subarticles for [[Playboy TV|Playboy Television]] and, [[Playboy Online]]), [[Playboy Publishing]], and [[Playboy Licensing]].  The way it is now Playboy Online wiki searchers are being directed to an article about Playboy Magazine which is a part of another division.  It would be just and equitable (when compared to other business enterprises on wiki) to give very different operations separate articles.  Grouping Playboy Online in with Playboy Magazine, which is a part of a different division of the company makes no sense.  Compare the 2005 and 2006 numbers on the financial page I sent you to.  You will see that the online business is growing and the publishing division is shrinking.  Probably, not long from now the Online division will generate more revenue than publishing. 2.) Yes there is a stigma.  I have tried Playboy Online for 2 separate 2 week free trials.  Asking people if they subscribe to playboy (or playboy online) is like polling people on whether they cheat on their spouse or whether they masterbate.  People will underreport.  They do so because there is a stigma.  The numbers speak for themselves.  There are probably 300,000 Playboy online members who pay for the cyber club.  There are additional hundreds of thousands who view the free Playboy Online at Playboy.com.  However, they are all shamelessly lurking as the vocal moral majority strips articles off of wikipedia 3.) Yes, softporn is a major part of the business. Sex sells.  You may be aware that they are entering the night club business.  I am comparing it to any business entity that exists on wikipedia.  There are several small cap companies that have extensive wikipedia articles.  In an effort to be neutral, I would admit that relative to other small cap companies, I am suggesting many more articles than is normal.  However, Playboy Enterprises is a much more diverse company than say a [[Jones Soda]] or a [[Gateway Computer]].  The argument is not based on the size of the company, but rather on the variety of the business enterprises.  4.) If you read my suggestion it is a partial restoration, which agrees with you that many of the subdomains are unnecessary.  Please read my undeletion request and note that I am only saying that some of the articles should be restored.  I concur that many individual Cyber Girls do not at this time meet notability requirements. 5.) The comparability is that whether you personally appreciate the achievement it is an annual competition with thousands of entrants and hundreds of thousands of fans who both enjoy the nature of the competition.  In addition, they enjoy participating in the voting.  6.) We disagree on the categories.  The use of the categories is that it will avert the need to create a webpage with a list and/or templates.  Girls who have article pages will be able to add a category. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', entirely uncontroversial assessment of the debate, which in turn was valid per procedure and guidelines.  Wikipedia is not a web directory, after all. Plus it really ''was'' porncruft. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-:* Guy, My question to you is 1.) did you read my request?  2.) Do you understand what cruft is?  Cruft is when a few people care about something that no one else cares about.  It is not when a company that is charging individuals between $8 and $20 per month is generating $50 million in revenue.  Cruft is not when a vocal group of people find something offensive and under the guise of due process pretend a group of less vocal people don't care about something.
-P.S. I have taken the liberty of creating the [[Playboy Entertainment]], [[Playboy Publishing]], and [[Playboy Licensing]] pages that represent the three major business segments of [[Playboy Enterprises]]. [[Playboy Online]] and [[Playboy Cyber Club]] should be undeleted (and possibly merged to support the [[Playboy Entertainment]]. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-P.S.S. I often argue about my vision of the way things should be because I can see my vision very clearly.  In order to gain a proper perspective I have created my vision for you to more fairly assess the question of whether wikipedia would be better with separate [[Playboy Online]] and/or [[Playboy Cyber Club]] pages.  See the template that is of the type I referenced above at [[:Template:Playboy]]. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 17:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-P.P.S. To see deleted content go here: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TonyTheTiger/temp]] [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''UNDELETE'''  My support of [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]]'s position is based on the fact (i.e., my [[opinion]]) that these articles are in his field of knowledge and expertise and to not allow him a fair amount of room is to not fully acknowledge and support his contributions to wikipedia.  As someone who operates in a relatively unpopulated niche (Business history, studies, etc.) [[User:TonyTheTiger|The Tiger]] should be allowed space to operate in. If folks such as him are not granted this leeway, then wikipedia just becomes an arm of [[Google]].  [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
-*Yeah, I'm not sure.  There has been a real porncruft rage.  I have to say that it does make sense to have [[Playboy Online]].  They ''were'' late to the net porn game, but they were initially the most successful of the men's magazines with a net presence, as they had more ways to advertise it.  It was, therefore, significant in being largest licit site and ... not very much pioneering, but notable.  Basically, they were the large boulder thrown into the pond: there was a big splash, whether or not we still see any waves.  The rest of it is more of note only in relation to that.  I support '''undelete''' Playboy Online.  I can't see the case as well for Playboy Cyber.  [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 12:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn Undelete''' Definately does not fall into the category of CRUFT. Mostly per TonyTheTiger. I also believe under his supervision the article has great room to expand. One thing I would like to see is the original version of the deleted article. [[User:Valoem|<font color="DarkSlateGray">'''Valoem'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<font color="Black">talk</font>''']]</sup> 18:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-:'''&nbsp;<font color="#CC6600">Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached</font>'''<br><small>&nbsp;Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, {{{1|[[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 11:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)}}}</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->
-*'''Overturn''' I find TonyTheTiger's argument sufficiently convincing to undelete [[Playboy Online]].  I believe there are encyclopedic things to be said about it, and he seems prepared to do so.  Not so sure about the Cyber Club or Girl articles.  Consensus on those seems very clear to me, and I'm not entirely persuaded that the award is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article.  Would not be opposed to a section on the award and a listing of winners in the Playboy Online article, though, if it wouldn't make that article too long. [[User:Shimeru|Shimeru]] 21:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn Deletion''' - I am also convinced by the nom's presentation and agree that these articles have merit. Normally I wouldn't overturn a proper AfD (which this technically was), but this case appears to be a reasonable exception. [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] seems dedicated to presenting the material in properly sourced and encyclopedic manner. --[[User:Doc Tropics|Doc  Tropics]] <sup>[[User talk:Doc Tropics|Message in a bottle]]</sup> 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[Alessandro pacciani]]====