Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:38, 4 October 2006

< September 29	October 1 >

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

30 September 2006

TaskJuggler

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TaskJuggler

I believe the deletion of the TaskJuggler article was a mistake. It is a widely used software. On UNIX/Linux it is _the_ MS Project equivalent. The project description language that was developed for the program is a major innovation to break out of the limitations that commonly used GANTT chart editors impose on their users. It is shipped with almost all major Linux distributions and has a Freshmeat popularity ranking of around 830. It has been covered multiple times by the international Linux press. Articles in English can be found at [1] and [2]. So, I kindly ask you to restore the article again. There is an equivalent articles in the German Wikipedia as well.

~~Both the links given above are 404s. Endorse deletion unless something substantial is presented to justify overturning the AfD.~~ --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No idea why they're coming up as 404s for you, Sam. I can get them both to load fine in Mozilla. -- nae'blis 18:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, they work fine on my own computer with Firefox (I was using a library computer with IE before). The articles certainly look like third-party coverage, the only trouble is that they're how-to guides - they don't say anything about, say, how widespread the software is, which is what is of most encyclopaedic interest. However, I'm going to say undelete and relist as the AfD's delete consensus was on the basis of the article lacking sources, and we now have what as far as I'm aware are reliable sources. We need to be more sure that the articles are or aren't enough than I can be. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Piddington (Australian politician)

There was a mass deletion of stub articles for Australian politicians, apparently because they were cookie-cutter stubs, which is not grounds for deletion. I believe that each of the politicians is or was an elected member of a state or national legislature, and hence would normally be considered notable, even if they are no longer in office. I am asking that the following articles be restored, together with any others that were deleted at the same time. Information on them ought to be available from the legislative body to which they belong or used to belong and from the Australian news media.

--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. All of these people are undoubtedly notable, but all of these pages were worse than nothing. Someone mass created hundreds of nanostubs, which consisted of exactly the same page with only the names changed, which told people absolutely nothing they didn't already know. In many cases, it wasn't even clear which person was being referred to without further research. I retained numerous pages where someone had later added information as basic as what party they were from, or what years they were in office, or even what electorate they represented - information that actually helped us work out who the person was (any two of these three would suffice). Without this, however, they were worse than nothing, and I thus speedied them as "no context". I have no doubt that they'll return someday (chances are that I'll ultimately write them), but please don't reinstate this crap. Rebecca 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I agree with Rebecca, these article had basically no content, and provided no real context to actually be useful for later expansion. Since most of these people are presumably living (but who can tell since the articles contain no dates or other points of reference), these also create issues with BLP that are not acceptable given the hit and run nature of the stubs.--Peta 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted -- agree. no content, other than the subjects name, and their role in parliament. Simply a reprhasing of the title with a one-liner tidbit. - Longhair\^talk 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I agree with Rebecca, Peta and Longhair. These aren't articles or valid stubs. Stub guidelines recommend a minimum of 3-10 sentences for stubs, but these are just single sentences that, except for the name and house, are identical to each other. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing articles on these politicians, but we don't need 40-whatever near-identical single sentences to do that. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. TruthbringerToronto:...they were cookie-cutter stubs, which is not grounds for deletion. Wrong. From the {{db-empty}} template: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). Someone can write actual stubs which include actual information, but these ain't them. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, do not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1) --Calton | Talk 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, they did not appear to meet any of the speedy criteria listed above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd: the sentence I posted was in English. Is there some difficulty here? --Calton | Talk 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, you seem to be having trouble with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I've have no trouble with it, but if you can't understand plain English, just say so. There's no shame, and help is available. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key word there is context. The sentence "x is an Australian politician elected as a member of y" does provide sufficient context. The flip side is that these appear to be mass-created substubs, which I don't really like either, so I have no opinion on the deletion. JYolkowski // talk 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted but Allow re-creation by TruthbringerToronto or anyone who wants to write real articles about them. Sometimes, in deletion debates about marginal topics, somebody says "Yeah, well what if somebody used cut-and-paste to create dozens of stubs about every [whatever the topic is]? While usually nobody expects that to really happen, it seems this is an authentic case. Stubs of one sentenece or less are generally speediable under A1 anyway, and cut-and-paste shenanigans should not be encouraged. If they are notable and verifiable, create real articles about them using verifiable sources. Dozens of articles that just say x is a y make us all look bad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, politicians are non-notable and have little content. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 13:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted -- the articles tell you nothing more than what you must have already known when you looked them up in the first place. However, allow recreation if anyone wishes to add detail. They meet the guideline for notability as members of state or federal legislatures. Jeendan 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletion. Although these articles may have been very boring stubs. They were very important articles on very important NOTABLE people. These articles lay the foundation for what Wikipedia will one day be. Todd661 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What, utterly useless? Because that's what these articles were. They weren't "boring" - to be bored, you must engage in a tedious activity for long enough to become frustrated. These articles would take less than a second to read. You don't feel bored, you feel annoyed that you clicked on a link, thinking you'd find some more information about the subject, and instead find that someone has wasted your time and bandwidth for the sake of filling space. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for mostly the same reasons as Rebecca. "{{subst:PAGENAME}} is an Australian Politician" does not an article make. — Werdna talk criticism 10:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restore all. A stub is better than nothing. It provides a framework onto which other editors can add additional information. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't even stubs. And the "additional information" that would be added would be, well, EVERYTHING. I don't think the "Stone Soup" model of encyclopedia writing really works. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the vast majority of Wikipedia users are not editors. The vast majority of people who come across sub-sub-stubs have no inclination to add additional information whatsoever; they won't think "Hooray, if I want to expand on this article then I don't have to write this one sentence", they will think "Why the hell did someone create this? If they'd just left the link red I wouldn't have just wasted my time following it and I would still know as much as I do now." --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. These articles were an eyesore and explained nothing. I would prefer that we start from scratch and actually write a decent article on some of these. --Roisterer 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just so we all know what we're referring to, here's an example of one of the longer stubs that got deleted:

'''Chris Hartcher''' is an [[Australia]]n politician, elected as a member of the [[New South Wales Legislative Assembly]] representing the [[Electoral district of Gosford|electorate of Gosford]]. {{Australia-politician-stub}} [[Category:New South Wales State politicians|Hartcher, Chris]][[Category:Liberal Party of Australia politicians|Hartcher, Chris]][[Category:New South Wales Central Coast]]

(continued) Shorter versions have only one category, and no "representing the. . ." clause. I'm not voting here because I don't think it matters much either way. But I think we can all agree that the best solution is to recreate these stubs with enough information that they're unquestionably valuable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If they could all look like that first one, they'd probably withstand not just CSD but AFD. This DRV is probably headed for an inconclusive end, but I'd endorse restoring the longer stubs and educating the original creator as to ways to make a better stub than c-n-p. -- nae'blis 18:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if you do this, I will re-delete all of these. 10-3 is a perfectly good consensus to keep deleted. Adding categories to a nanostub doth not make content (though feel free to write them in actual stub form). Rebecca 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because we're endorsing a mistake now doesn't mean it's a bright idea to endorse it again later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy-deletions for lack of context. Speedy-deletion does not create a prejudice against the creation of a real article someday. Rossami (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletions, a random sample shows that they were indeed effectively empty. Feel free to create meaningful stubs, or even actual articles. Quality is more important than quantity these days, especially for politicians. Come to think of it, that applies to the real world as well... Guy 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 </noinclude>
 ===30 September 2006===
-====[[Simon Pulsifer]]====
-This article just survived an AfD (see the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Pulsifer 2|discussion here]]). [[User:Mailer Diablo|Mailer Diablo]] closed the AfD as "keep"; however, [[User:The Land|The Land]] speedy deleted it per A7. Not only did the speedy deletion fly in the face of community consensus, the deletion did not conform to CSD A7 because the article did assert notability. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
-*<s>'''Follow up''': this can be withdrawn as [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]] restored the article. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)</s>
-*It is deleted again. And it should stay that way; community consensus has never been more ill-advised. He is notable for editing Wikipedia, so he has a Wikipedia article? Can you really not see the problem? [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-::Mmm, wheel war. The article had a large number of major media mentions that focused on him (if I recall it correctly), that in themselves would assert notability and make it ineligible for A7. '''Restore''' as per AfD result. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::Being mentioned in the media as a simple example of a new hobby does not make one notable in any kind of encyclopedic sense. These kinds of things do not assert notability. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-::::So for all that, even [[WP:WW|wheel war]] is also correct? - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Renew DRV'''. It is disappointing to see one admin's opinion supercede clear, well reasoned consensus with the opportunity for discussion by all. This article has survived two AfDs, one only a day ago. Whether you agree with the consensus or not, one would expect that the will of the community would be respected. Deletion after an AfD in which the consensus was deletion I could understand, but to consider this within the criteria of A7 is stretching it to the absurd. Obviously the opinion of those in the trenches doesn't matter and the AfD process is merely for show. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 09:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''', [[WP:PROCESS|outrageously out of process]] and [[WP:WW|wheel warring]]. I was not even informed by the sysops in question. [[WP:CSD|A7]] states AfD will ''always'' trump CSD. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 09:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-:* I've dropped a note at [[WP:ANI]] to request investigation on a possible wheel-warring. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 09:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' per ''two'' receent AfD consensuses. Any article that has survived at AfD should not be speedily deleted if an admin doesn't like the outcome. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 09:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn (restore)''': we absolutely ''cannot have'' admins who think that they can disregard community consensus just because they have been entrusted with the mop.  Oh, and calling it CSD A7 is just facile - I'd almost rather e'd taken the Tony Sidaway route and at least been honest that he was [[WP:IAR|ignoring all rules]]. [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 09:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted'''. Yes, I was ignoring all rules, because the deletion procedure produced a result that was clearly wrong. And I don't do so lightly.
-:*'''Notability'''. To say that the person concerned is 'notable' is nonsense. Thousands of people are mentioned in newspapers every day. They are not all notable. To be notable you must have done something of interest to readers of an encyclopedia. SimonP has not, any more than any of the rest of us has. There are many people Wikipedians who are expert psephologists or physicists; there are some who are pedophile activists or paranormal investigators whose notoriety is such that they are of encyclopedic interest. However, we leave the articles of many part-time potholers, train-spotters and pigeon-fanciers (Wikipedians or not) mercifully unwritten: even for people who have achieved immortal transcendence by being interviewed by a journalist. '''Simply being an editor of Wikipeida is not, and can never be, a calim to notability'''.
-:*'''Verifiability'''. Some people argued that the fact that SimonP's contributions had been noted in mainstream media meant that his contribution was 'verifiable'. This is also nonsense. MediaWiki software is a reliable source, for the very limited purpose of recording someone's Wikipedia contributions. SimonP's contributions are just as verifiable whether or not they are referred to by neutral media outlets.
-:Therefore, I deleted the article because there was no claim to notability asserted, and it should stay that way. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 09:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-::You should have brought this arguments in the AfD and convinced people. Asserting you have an access to absolute truth and your opinions trump the consensus is not acceptable. I neither have a love for procedure nor did I ever see this article, but deleting it ''against'' the outcome of the AfD makes a farce of the whole process. And indeed, you can claim either A7 or [[WP:IAR]], but not both. '''Restore''' on principle. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 10:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-::That is the most reprehensible thing I've ever read in a Wikipedia discussion. '''Restore'''. Deciding that the masses can't decide what does into Wikipedia? Do you see the problem with your thinking? Wikipedia is a ''community'' encyclopedia![[User:71.70.165.34|71.70.165.34]] 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore'''. Consensus is the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and there's clear consensus that this article should not be deleted. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 10:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-**You're just wrong here. Our fundamental principle is that we're an encyclopedia. Our goals come before consensus, and cannot be overridden by votes. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 17:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''' - seems to be a horrendous concept that on wp we can vote to keep any old crap and we *must* then keep it. [[WP:NOT|not a democracy]] [[WP:ENC]] etc. Votes don't trump WP's core aims. --[[User_talk:Pgk|pgk]] 10:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' per 2 AFD's, where conensus has told us that Wikipedia wants this article kept. <font face="sans-serif">'''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel]][[Special:Random|.]][[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|Bryant]]'''</font> 10:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*AFD, schmAFD. [[WP:V]] has long trumped [[WP:CON]], and being mentioned in passing as an example of a Wikipedia user just doesn't cut it, and just because a bunch of people wish we had enough verifiable info for an article doesn't mean we do. TheLand did the right thing. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*: Why raise [[WP:V]] only now? We have 10 days of AfD altogether, and suddenly we have people who deletes it abruptly and imply that [[The Globe and Mail]] with the circulation of 2 million is an [[WP:RS|unreliable source]]? - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer&nbsp;]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo/D|D]]'''[[User:Mailer diablo|iablo]] 10:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*::A single human interest story in the Globe and Mail is insufficient material for an article, and this was kept because of the natural bias to keep things relating to Wikipedia just because they're Wikipedia. You made the good-faith mistake of not filtering out this non-contributory bias, and the AFD should have been overturned. Additionally, being the focus of a single human-interest story in the Globe and Mail isn't enough to save someone from CSD A7. You were wrong (albeit in good faith), TheLand was right, and that's even looking at policy. Setting aside our byzantine, self-contradictory deletion rules, SimonP clearly doesn't meet [[WP:BIO]] and nothing but the most trivial claims can be made about him, failing [[WP:V]] miserably. There is no reason to have an article about him other than that bunch of people want it, and a bunch of people wanting something has always been the least important reason to do anything on Wikipedia. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 10:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*:::But that's a question of notability, not verifiability. [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]<sup>([[User Talk:David.Mestel|Talk]])</sup> 10:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*::::Notability is verifiability. There's nothing you can say about Simon (as opposed to about Wikipedia) based on the cited articles. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*::::"''this was kept because of the natural bias to keep things relating to Wikipedia just because they're Wikipedia.''" - Does this mind-reading device of yours come in other colours than black? You might make quite business out of it. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 11:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*:::::I got that from reading the AFD discussions. - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <font color="black">'''Bl♟ck'''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-'''Keep Deleted''' - To be honest, having looked at googles cached page of the article, I'd have to say that the form it was in (unless there were major changes afterwards) was little more than a stub. Were it to be expanded, then it could only ever go into such things as editing style, preferred articles, articles created or featured, etc, etc. Of course, that would be vanity anywhere other than in userspace, where EVERYbody has their own page.
-An article on "[[Wikipedians in the Media]]" could be justified. It's a notable subject that someone might look for, and clearly the first place to turn for such information would be Wikipedia. Naturally, Simon Pulsifer would have a reasonable section in such an article. '''Editors editing articles about editors that exist purely because particular editors have lots of edits though - the problem is pretty clear''', and so CSD A7 was the correct reason (as much as it could be) on grounds of vanity, if not notability.  [[User:The Land|The Land]] probably should have talked to [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer diablo]] about it first perhaps (for which The Land has made an apology for any unintended offence/aggrevation caused [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=78854750#CSD_Wheel_Warring]), but as this is about deletion of an article rather than the actions of an admin, it has no bearing on the outcome of this DRV. I believe the decision to delete the article was the correct one for the encyclopedia. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 11:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Cut this out''' Seriously, Wikipedia needs admins using the tools for producitivty and not deletions just because you feel that other people are wrong. This is completely absurd, and any action taken to delete this just because you feel it doesn't meet notability is a little ridiculous, this is not another AfD, if you want to take it to AfD, take it to AfD. Don't argue it here, now use the tools that '''consensus''' granted ''you'' and use them to get some stuff done around here and not use them to win an argument. [[User talk:Yanksox|<font color="black">Yank</font><font color="red">sox</font>]] 12:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-::And there I was believing that I was perfectly entitled to add my well reasoned opinion to a deletion review, and that a deletion review in fact invited such opinions? I'm not arguing anything - I'm giving my opinion. This isn't some kind of vendetta or cabal. It's a review of a deletion, and I honestly feel that it should be deleted. Admins are given the tools they have for the good of the encylopedia, and sometimes concensus isn't what's good for it. Thats the entire reason that WP:IAR exists - one of the tools given to admins through the same "consensus" you speak of. By all means comment against my view if you disagree with it, but please at least make it relevant to the reasoning for my opinion. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::I'm not talking to you, I'm responding the admins that I've been reverting. Yes, I know IAR exists, and I used that to revert that invoking of IAR, thus creating an ugly cycle. This is honestly, ridiculous, open a new AfD, don't use this as a generalized platform. [[User talk:Yanksox|<font color="black">Yank</font><font color="red">sox</font>]] 12:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::: OK. The only thing I can say here is that I apologise profusely. I thought you were replying to my comment in particular. lol. Thanks for clarifying. :) --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 12:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn speedy deletion''' do not relist, do not re-AFD as a DRV action.  AFD establishment of consensus has priority over any CSD criteria.  If an admin believes that AFD consensus was misread, they can bring it here for review.  If they believe the consensus was read but some other result is appropriate, they can bring it back to AFD.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 13:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and restore'''.  Valid AfD exists, it can't be an A7.  My goodness. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and restore''', the Wikipedia community acheived a concensus and wants the article to be kept. Articles which survived AFD should be kept and not speedied, at least. --[[User:Terence Ong|Ter]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Terence Ong|nce Ong]] <sub>([[User talk:Terence Ong|T]] | [[Special:Contributions/Terence Ong|C]])</sub> 13:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-**We are not voting on policy. If people can't make arguments based on policy, then they should not expect their "votes", no matter how many there are, to be respected. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We have a commitment to put project goals above consensus and even the community. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 16:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-***Ok, here is the long winded form of the argument that you are objecting to.  [[WP:CSD]] says "When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under deletion policy."  When two prior closed AFDs have resulted in a keep consensus, it is obivous to any reasonable person that there is at least reasonable doubt about whether the article meets any CSD condition, and therefore speedy deletion is illegitimate.  A7 also specifically says that "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead."  It is obvious that this speedy deletion was a violation of the policy on speedy deletion.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-****The closing admin made a mistake. It is inappropriate to keep articles in the face of policy, no matter how many people "vote" against appropriate action. If you like, you may consider this to be my re-closing that AfD -- my action is solidly based in policy. You cannot vote to turn Wikipedia into Myspace, Everything2, or other sites, no matter how many people who don't understand our policy and project goals show up. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*****If the admin was wrong, you might have a point.  This article was not in violation of any policy. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse Deletion''' per pgk. Wikipedia should have articles about ''important'' things, not [[WP:NOT|filled with crap]] about something no one will want to read. // [[User:Pilotguy|<font color="#000000">'''Pilotguy'''</font>]] ([[User_talk:Pilotguy|<font color="#0000FF">Have your say</font>]]) 14:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Note:''' I blanked the page to <nowiki>{{tempundelete}}</nowiki> as a middle ground between deletion and undeletion while this article is going through DRV after [[User:Yanksox|Yanksox]] undeleted the page. I have already seen enough "[[WP:ANI#CSD Wheel Warring|CSD wheel war]]" and I hope the next one isn't coming, so I use this as a middle ground and hope everyone is "happy" to a certain extent. --[[User:Winhunter|WinHunter]] <sup>([[User talk:Winhunter|talk]])</sup> 14:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Suggested compromise''' - move material to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_news]] (making the article name a redirect to that page or some other way of preventing recreation in the future). The fact that this article could be a summary of the newspaper article and put at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_news]] should make some people realise that this is where it belonged in the first place. I agree with the arguments that this shouldn't be in article space (for a start, there are no links from any other articles). There may be other "Wikipedia" namespace pages where it is appropriate to add snippets of information about Simon Pulsifer and his [[15 minutes of fame]], but not main article space. Also, I believe that having "Simon Pulsifer" in a Wikipedia namespace page means that anyone searching Wikipedia will still be able to find this information. Finally, I am uneasy at the way people treat AfD as a vote. Well-reasoned arguments should trump votes that repeat arguments that have been lost (as is happenning again here - several people are using arguments that have clearly been argued down - maybe they are failing to read other people's comments before adding their comment). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''', this was outrageously out of process. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 15:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''', Wikipedia is serious business. Top internet site consisting of user-generated content. Being a top user is therefore a ''claim'' to notability.  Whether the claim is valid is for discussion, not single-handed admin action.  The discussion happened on AfD, it was claimed valid. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 17:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-**The AfD missed the point. It's not just notability - it's whether there is enough info to fill an encyclopedic article, along with vanity issues. Besides - who remembers every little public interest story they read about - let alone remember even the name of who it was about? Even the notability issue is questionable, without the other perfectly valid points that show it to be an article that is not only a superfluous stub, but also in contradiction with the goals of wikipedia as a whole. That's what matters here - the encyclopedia. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted'''. Out of process and against the prior AFDs? Yes. However, [[Simon Pulsifer]] contained no claim to notability beyond "Simon Pulsifer is a prolific editor of Wikipedia" and there is ''no reason'' to have this article. Ultimately the only thing that happened to Simon is having a human interest story written about him in a newspaper. So? Just about anyone can have such a story written about them (I have); it doesn't make ''me'' notable.--[[User:Nilfanion|Nilfanion]] ([[User talk:Nilfanion|talk]]) 17:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-:Someone who's had a story written about them in a national news magazine and a national newspaper? That's notable. That being said, this discussion really should be focusing more on the fact that A7 was used for the deletion when the article clearly asserted notability. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore.'''  I'm on the fence as to whether the article merits inclusion on the 'pedia, but deleting an article immediately after an AfD because you don't like how it turned out really isn't acceptable.  DRV isn't the place to discuss the merits of the article, AfD was.  "But those Keep voters just didn't get it" just isn't a terribly compelling argument to delete the article. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]]     [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore'''. AfD shows the consensus. Wikipedia is built on consensus. -- [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 01:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' Nothing terribly wrong with the article to endorse out of process deletion. The article satisfies non-negotiable principles of Wikipedia (V,NOR,NPOV, etc.) and most of the editors want to see the info in, so why not? (I would personally vote Weak Delete on the AfD) [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 02:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' - sorry guys even if your points are valid to do this immediately following an unsuccesful afd is outrageous. [[User talk:Glen S|'''Gl<font color="green">e</font>n''']] 04:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and undelete''' 2... I repeat... 2 afd's closed as keep... This is a clear case of abuse of deletion powers. &nbsp;[[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|&trade;]][[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. The Globe and Mail story is no more about Simon Pulsifer than [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/01/news/city13.php this story] is about a ''ful'' vendor named Farouk Salem. He's not the subject, he's the hook. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 07:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore'''&mdash;I have no opinion about the subject itself, but I have a ''very strong opinion'' about AfDs and admin responsibility. The result of an AfD ''must be respected by administrators''&mdash;you cannot decide on your own say-so that an article should be deleted even though the community decided to keep it. This is not a discussion we should even be having. It's long past time that our admins all started playing by the rules&mdash;and we can't even get all our admins to respect a fundamental principle like this? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-::Agree. Admins do get the tools to execute community consensus, not to overturn it. I have not seen the page in question (and now cannot even do so), but in this case discussing the page is besides the point. If there had been no AfD, the deletion might have been fine. But deleting in opposition to a recent AfD definitely is not ok. Put it up for another AfD and make your point there. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 09:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::You can still see the page in the page history. The last version before the template was added is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Pulsifer&oldid=78859937 here]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 10:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' per the AfD. Both sides were ill-advised in participating in any deletion and restoration actions, but sanctions for wheel warring are not necessary. Our speedy deletion criteria are narrowly construed criteria for deleting articles that would not survive an AfD. If an article has survived an AfD, it clearly does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. &mdash; '''[[User:Werdna|Werdna]]''' ''[[User talk:Werdna|talk]]'' ''[[User talk:Werdna/Review|criticism]]'' 10:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''. Would all the process wonks please stand up to be vilified? When it comes to BLP, process goes out the window and we have to ask the tough questions, in this case whether this person should have an article. The answer is so obviously no that I'm staggered we've having this discussion, and can only conclude that in the white heat of anger over the uncharacteristic exercise of discretion and judgement by a sysop we've all lost our minds. The Atlantic's recent article mentioned several other Wikipedia editors by username. Are they now notable? I've seen Rambot's efforts described. Is a bot now worthy of encyclopedic mention? AfD got it so staggeringly wrong that any out of process concerns should be directed at ''that'' discussion. The customer is not always right, and a random assortment of Wikipedians, drawn by accident from the pool, are not infallible and were not speaking ''ex cathedra'' in any event. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 11:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-**It's hard for me to take seriously the suggestion that we should override policy and process just because you think he shouldn't have an article. Everybody has an opinion, you know. What if the AfD had a delete result, and somebody favoring keep had this same attitude? There's a very good reason why we look for what the general opinion is, and why we use a process that enables these things to be decided in an orderly and reasonable fashion. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 11:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-**Also, this is not a [[WP:BLP]] issue. The article is neither defamatory nor negative. And what little information is there seems to be reasonably sourced. Whether this article should exist is a question of notability. That it should ''not'' be deleted for lack of notability ''against'' established consensus is obvious to me. What harm is a non-notable article doing to the project if it persists a few more month before it gets deleted after another AfD that hopefully all who now support out-of-process deletion will participate in? Compare that to the harm done by an admin not only obviously ignoring process (although, as I'm quite ready to believe, in good faith), but acting against the result established via process? Especially since there are other ways of dealing with the situation, like challenging the closing or participating in another AfD. [[WP:NOT]] an anarchy in which those with the stronger tools persist!--[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 13:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion'''.  I have been the primary subject of local radio and both local and national newspaper interviews, been on national TV news broadcasts and radio current affairs programmes as a participant in debates, been quoted in Parliament, and I am ''still'' well below the threshold of encyclopaedic notability. Those few cited newspaper stories are proof that SimonP edits Wikipedia, something which I guess we could not otherwise have stated without original research, but that scarcely amounts to a great rveelation since actually most of us already ''knew'' that he edits Wikipedia.  What is he supposed to be notable for, precisely?  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-:*Would you endorse throwing out two AfD results and the process of consensus along with it just to "win" your side of the opinion? Notability  is often a subjective question, as this highly controversial article shows. -- [[User:Stbalbach|Stbalbach]] 13:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-:** Yes, because as far as I am concerned, to re-instate something that needs to be deleteted purely because people don't like the way in which it was deletetd is insanity - it's creating work for the sake of work. This is a perfect example of the problem when you call up your local government offices and can't get any sense out of them. This is a deletion review. It's not about the rights and wrongs of method. It's not about the circumstances surrounding the deletion. It's about whether or not the article deleted should stay deleted on the basis of nothing more than whether or not the article actually should be deleted or not. Process is irrelevant here - what matters is Wikipeda and the article itself - not personalities. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 14:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-:***Deletion Review '''is''' about everything you said it isn't. The place to have debated the merits of the article was at AfD. That happened twice. The point of this discussion is whether or not the article was deleted out of process. This might not be a democracy, but up until a few months ago consensus mattered. This is but one of the most recent of a growing number of incidents where it is coming to be that concensus does not matter. Administrators are purportedly entrusted with the tools after a ''consensus'' by the community that the nominee will not abuse the privileges of being granted the tools. An admin ought not use those tools because he or she happens to think everyone else participating in the procedure was "wrong", or ought not lay in the weeds awaiting the outcome and then acting to the contrary if the result is not what was desired. It makes a mockery of the process, and turns good faith participation in that process into a waste of time. [[User:Agent 86|Agent 86]] 17:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-:****Actually, no. In RfAs, the comments given on the voting actually matter more than the vote count. So sayeth the guidance. Wikipedia isn't about concensus - it's about an encyclopedia. Concensus is just one of the tools used to build the encyclopedia, and admins using WP:IAR to do what's best for wikipedia in line with its goals constitute another and more important tool. Jimbo himself said that consensus doesn't constitute some kind of holy writ, and you'd think he'd know aboud these things having actually co-founded wiki. If the world ran on pure concensus, the world would fall apart. It's been seen time and time again. Just for the record again though, it's not just about notability, it's about vanity (which is the only place this stub sized article could possibly go). Also note that if you want to discuss the validity of an admins use of WP:IAR to delete an article, then it stands to reason that the reasons that the admin concerned felt it was nessecary to do so are an integral part of that discussion, thus, the (de)merits of the article are valid points in endorsing the deletion. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Endorse deletion''', valid A7, policy trumps the mass handwaving that characterises AfDs on articles on anything vaguely related to Wikipedia. (See also: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination)]].) --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-**So you endorse the abandonment of policy by citing policy? This comes across as too weird not to note. You might want to read A7 over again, Sam. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-***What policy? It is not policy to slavishly follow majority votes - in fact it's closer to the opposite. Policy states that biographies without assertions of notability may be deleted. This is a biography, and it contains no assertion of notability. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 18:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-****Then you misunderstand CSD A7.  You also misunderstand where the assertion of nobility is - mainly his involvement in newsworthy events.  You're incorrect, and to cite policy to back up your endorsement of an abandonment of it makes no sense.  No one's saying "slavishly follow majority votes," they're saying "there's no justificaiton for an A7 given the assertion, and the consensus of the community was to keep it."  Done deal, sorry you disagree. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 18:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-*****I see no newsworthy events mentioned in the article. Interesting slip (Freudian?) in the second sentence, btw. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and restore''' per the two keep results at AfD. [[User:Bbx|bbx]] 18:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' and undelete.  For crying out loud, this is ridiculous.  [[User:RFerreira|RFerreira]] 22:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-* '''Restore''' immediately. It has all been said above, but deleting this was the kind of misguided abuse that should never happen here (but is sadly all to frequent). Seek consensus before spitting in people's faces. And accept community decisions (i.e. AfD results) even when you disagree. --[[User:JJay|JJay]] 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn and restore''' per bbx, RFerreira, Alkivar, et al. --[[User:Myleslong|Myles Long]] 22:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment''' - does no-one want to even think about compromising. If the article is just restored, it will almost certainly go to another AfD sometime soon. I refer people to the suggestion I made above, regarding moving the content to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the news]]. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-**I actually gave a similar suggestion in my first comment here. I'm for it. It doesn't need a seperate article though. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-***I think that's a very good idea - In the News is where this sort of material belongs. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 06:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-****That is probably a good idea, if this article is restored as a result of this DRV then I suggest you propose it on the talk page - highlighting it as a proposed merge/move. Speedily doing anything to this article is just going to get people riled up. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 12:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-*****Agreed. I've added my vote below, and would urge anyone who voted to endorse the deletion to change their vote to restore, followed by supporting the proposed move/merge. I agree that speedily doing anything will inflame things. Note that I agree with the deletion, but am endorsing restoration to allow the community to attempt to reach a consensus. I think the amount of bad feeling an endorsed deletion will create is worse than having a little more discussion to try and achieve a consensus compromise. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-**I'm seeing some comments here that lead me to think one of these admins will delete it again no matter what the result of this is. If that happens, it would be a major escalation; I hope they will respect the result this time as they failed to do before&mdash;even if they don't agree with it, and even if they are in fact supreme geniuses who understand things so much better than the rest of us. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Restore''' to allow discussion of suggested compromise(s) on talk page. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-:*Not going to happen with my vote. I endorse the deletion because the article is unencyclopedic and vain. I have no problem with it's insersion into In The News, as it's where it belongs. That, or an article called [[Wikipedians in the Media]]. However, restoring it to delete it eventually just makes work for the sake of it. The article is in a semi-restored state anyway - the Talk page can be edited eben now, so there's no problem with people discussing it there now if they wanted to. It's only the article that's protected by the looks of it. It doesn't need to be restored to be discussed. It can't be expected for people to comprimise on a comprimise - that's proverbially known as "moving the goalposts". Besides - consensus isn't everything - it's only one tool in a toolbox that exists to fulfiil wikipedias goals.
-::In fact, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASimon_Pulsifer&diff=67898471&oldid=67869977 this diff], Simon himself said  '''I am honoured, but I quite certainly do not think that I deserve an article.'''. I'm inclined to agree with him. --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::I'd forgotten that it had already been restored and then protected. You are right. The proposal to move it could be taken to the talk page right now, but I think waiting until this review is closed would be better, otherwise the discussion will be deleted! (I think - are talk pages deleted along with articles?) [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-::::PS. [[Wikipedians in the media]] is the correct capitalisation of your suggested article. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::::Though the Wikipedia namespace still seems best. ie. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the media]]. Somewhere in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Wikipedian&namespace=4 this lot] maybe? I also found [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles]] and [[Wikipedia:Celebrities_who_have_been_quoted_as_having_used_Wikipedia]]. Simon is not on either list, for obvious reasons (the Wikipedians with articles have done something outside of Wikipedia - or founded Wikipedia - to get on the list; the Celebrities are mostly upper A or B-list celebrities, not, no offence to Simon, a 7-day wonder on a slow news day). Anyway, I hope these examples will serve to show why the content at [[Simon Pulsifer]] should be in the Wikipedia namespace, rather than article namespace. Again, I urge a separate discussion be started on [[Talk:Simon Pulsifer]] about moving the content to the Wikipedia namespace, and this deletion review held open until the discussion has finished. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-::::::I have created [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the news]], and merged the content, as an example of 'how it might work'. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-:::::::Seems fair and to the point. Perhaps it would be filled out with a little more explanation of what it's about and made a little more wiki-centric, but yes, it seems to work :) --[[User:Crimsone|Crimsone]] 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''List the AfD on DRv''' The dispute seems to be about whether the AfD closures were compatible with Wikipedia policy. Therefore, there should be a DRv about the AfD, not about the subsequent speedy (which violates [[WP:CSD#A7]] unless the AfD is overturned, as A7 specifically requires an AfD in cases where the speedying is challenged). --[[User:ais523|ais523]] 15:02, 3 October 2006 ([[User:ais523|U]][[User talk:ais523|T]][[Special:Contributions/Ais523|C]])
-*'''Keep deleted'''. Simon is barely notable outside Wikipedia, and considering that this is a self-reference, the threshold must be set higher than in normal cases. Unlike what some people think, process ''is'' important, '''but''' this is deletion review, not administrator action review. It's obvious that the article should be deleted. OTOH, if anybody thinks that the admin that deleted it habitually disregards process, there are appropriate venues for addressing those concerns, but this is not one of them. [[User talk:Zocky|Zocky]] | [[User:Zocky/Picture Popups|picture popups]] 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-**This is not what avoid self-references means.  Re-read [[WP:SELF]].  All avoiding self-references means is trying not to say things like, "further on in this article," and other such cases where the article makes reference to itself.  It does not at all mean that, because the topic is related to Wikipedia, we should try to avoid it.  DRV is by definition administrator-action review.  The "appropriate venues" you refer to are intended for review of adminship as a whole; no one has called for a defrocking or beheading or demopping or whatever analogy is trendy this week.  You state "it's obvious that the article should be deleted," but ''that'' is the type of discussion that belongs in other venues.  The purpose of this DRV is to discuss whether the article was improperly deleted, ''not'' to rehash a debate about the merits of the article itself.  [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]]     [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''undelete''' this please there was a consensus to keep it please respect that [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn'''. This is outrageous! - <b>[[User:Crzrussian|CrazyRussian]]</b><small> [[User_talk:Crzrussian|talk]]/[[Special:Emailuser/Crzrussian|email]]</small> 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comments'''. Wow, it seems that I've now joined the likes of Brian Peppers, Sollog, and Akida Kim as the subject of my very own AfD fracas. My personal view is that I don't really deserve an article, but that it is kind of cool to have one. I would say the most surprising thing is the sheer amount of media coverage I have gotten in the last few months, and how long it is continuing. In the last week alone I was interviewed by ''MAXI'', a German women's magazine; spoke to a reporter from something billed as the Dutch equivalent of ''Wired''; and appeared on [[Newstalk 1010]] in Toronto. At the same time even if this coverage has made me notable, I still wouldn't say that a verifiable article can be written on me. It is impossible to create an accurate portrait of me from the scraps of material in the various articles on me. Moreover, the current bout of press coverage will certainly soon end and from that point the article will grow increasingly out of date as the mass media will assuredly not broadcast many future updates. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-:Hey, if you wrote to the Foundation asking for your article to be... No, that would be unfair. :-) Seriously, what do you think of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians in the news]] - do you think it has potential as an alternative place for this sort of thing? Can you (or anyone) think of other Wikipedians that have had their own series of newspaper articles about them, as opposed to Wikipedia in general? [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep deleted'''--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 06:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' and restore. "This page is about process, not about content". Speedy deleting it directly after it survived an AfD is misusing the process. If you disagree with an AfD, bring it on DRV. This deletion just makes AfD completely ridiculous, and makes one wonder why we should participate in it when admins can ignore it anyway, without even discussing it. [[User:Fram|Fram]] 08:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 ====[[TaskJuggler]]====