Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 15

15 May 2008

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs (edit | [[Talk:User:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

References Added Commoncase (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Members, I have done a lot of work on this article over the last week, and I believe it is now up to standard to be put back in the main Wiki, as simply "Bloodstained Memoirs". I have included references to many, varied third party and reliable news sources, stated reasons for notability, and generally tidies up the article to a more polished standard. There are no instances of Crystal Ball knowledge, as all items stated in the article have been referenced either from the official site, or third party news sites (with interviews from the producer). Commoncase (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. I'm not all together convinced that the references there now constitute reliable sources, but certainly all the WP:CRYSTAL concerns are addressed, and I'm certain reliable sources will be available in the very near future. MrPrada (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and tag it with {{Current}} or with similar tag that indicates that the information may change a lot when the documentary is released --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Put back as a main article. I believe this is a good page and should be put back up as a main article. The references are well known Wrestling related news sites.I can't see where anybody else is expecting references from considering this is a wrestling production? I feel this article meets all criteria. Arthur Cutz (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Wait - Looking better, but it still reads more like a promotional flyer to me than an encyclopedic article. Better sourcing, though some of it (YouTube, blogs) is still not going to satisfy WP:V, and others (the Production section) are kinda overkill. The big thing is that it's still unreleased, which still puts this into WP:CRYSTAL territory. I'd rather wait until it's released, when some actual independent reviews come out. There is no deadline, after all. -- Kesh (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Aset Ka

Aset Ka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm filing this request for GustavusPrimus. She claims the article was incorrectly deleted; the original AfD closed as delete, as it was an unreferenced hoax, however, the article was rewritten with more references and images, but similar information. The article was then speedied under WP:CSD#G4, something the author disagrees with. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (as closing admin) The only new source offered in the recent draft is a self-published book on Aset Ka that contains much of the same unreliable and unreferenced material that was used to substantiate the outrageous claims made in the previously deleted article. As such, I consider the original consensus to still apply and have therefore speedied the new version per G4. It is worth noting that no draft of the article ever offered any record of physical evidence for the historicity of the order or any published criticism of the research that led to uncovering its existence.
• Trusilver put it best in the deletion debate, "It's a hoax, and not even that good of a hoax. Every source I have found on Aset Ka cross references each other in a way that looks legitimate until you see that it's nothing but a house of cards - each source relying on each other for notability except that none of them provide any true references. There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago which as far as I'm concerned put this clearly in opposition of WP:NOT#OR." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn "There is not a single source on the organization older than three years ago" - Although this is not true, it is not even a valid argument, because even if the organization is 3 years old, it still is a valid organization. We are not here to discuss its age. The Wikipedia article does not endorse any of the order's ideals or belief system, it works only as a reference to an occult tradition. The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books. The last book added as reference is an international publication, with an official ISBN number, readily available on Amazon and countless other bookstores worldwide. No matter how much we may disagree from the contents of the book or question the truth of their beliefs, as we can do with any other religion or new age tradition, it still deserves respect as such. And the existence of the tradition is verifiable. It is throughfully documented in an international published book, and addressed in several other books not published and nor endorsed by the organization.
• The reason for deletion simply that the organization does not exist, being a hoax. And that is easily proven false. The verifiability of the organization's existence is easy to research and prove, only their beliefs are not and are not even the subject of this debate. The Aset Ka is an officially licensed publisher from Portugal, with the tile granted by APEL, the Portuguese government institution responsible to legislate those organizations. They even have their own ISBN prefixes and ISBN gamma intervals that can only be used exclusively by their organization, marked as an "Occult Order" on APEL's databases, which I verified myself with a phone call, which any of you can also make to verify it.
• The article that was deleted one year ago had several misconceptions in the terms of their theology and even nomenclature, all of that was corrected in the new article. Just the former writer of the old article probably did not cared about it and did not even defended his writings upon deletion request in the last time. The new book added as a reference and source was even already available as of last year, and it was simply did not mentioned, which proves how the former writer was not knowledgeable and misinformed, compared to the new one.
• On the top of that, 2 images were deleted and marked as copy of previously deleted material (CSD G4), which is clearly inaccurate, since none of those images were ever present on Wikipedia, or anything close to it, which can easily be verified by any admin. Also, both images were presented with full information, as well as copyright and under fair use, meeting all of Wikipedia requirements and the United States law.
• So I really hope this review for deletion can be seen with new eyes and more of an open mind, instead of a biased opinion based on the author's claims. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any information on the order that is not published by the order itself? Every claim about the order comes from either its website, self-published book about a bible of dubious authenticity, or (apparently) its sole founder/historian. Wikipedia articles may not rely entirely on primary sources. BTW, the two images were deleted simply because they appeared in the article. Their copyright information and fair use claims were indeed in order. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The "bible" is not of dubious authenticity, you are interpreting it wrong. It is never said, in any place, that the "bible" is an old book. It is merely a book name, Asetian Bible. The book is said as written recently, that is even explained on the book's introduction, that is freely available, without the need of buying the book. So there are no false claims in there, the book is merely a work that describes their religion, tradition, beliefs and tenets. It is not supposed to be any ancient work now finally published, and therefore having a "dubious authenticity" as you stated. As for the self-publishing, the book was first even announced as from other independent publisher, but in the end it was published under Aset Ka's name, I believe that it was because of a copyright issue that arose, according to my resources. But personally I don't even believe this is the point, considering all the other arguments that I have used. As for other information available that is not created by the order, there are several things, that if properly researched can be used to validate it, as the TV documentary for example. GustavusPrimus (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The bible purports an "Asetian tradition" that clearly does not exist. It discusses lineages and hierarchies and quasi-historical connections to ancient Egypt without any shred of proof. This can be said without even delving into the various nutball claims about vampirism made in the source text and its analysis. Aset Ka appears to be a ready-made movement, except it has no verifiable history or constituency of followers, and it promotes itself as a "secret order" (note the logical inconsistency of that last part). In that sense, it is a hoax. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, very wrong argument, ultimately mistaken and biased. The tradition does exist and is fully explained in the published book. Their reference to Lineages, is explained in the book that it is NOT a hierarchy or ANY historical connection. It is not related with like our concept of a bloodline, or any genetic connection to people in Ancient Egypt. They explain it, that in their tradition, the term refers exclusively to an esoteric concept, a definition that is connected to 3 archetypes! Archetypes! No real connections or any quasi-historical thing, as you referred. So it needs no proof, since there is no claim! All these arguments are being made up upon comments made by vandalism and misinterpretations on the old article. This is what I should call as full misinformation or ignorance on the debated subject. You just stated something that clearly the referenced books state otherwise, so it should be better if the material was consulted before making arguments on it. This is ultimately nefast to Wikipedia and knowledge, since arguments are being made with no foundation and by people that don't even know what are they commenting upon. So first read the mentioned work, then comment please. Thank you. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not think that I can form a fair opinion of this without seeing the content that was deleted. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Temp restored. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Endorse deletion. If I disregard the two votes in the afd that claim it is a hoax, we would get 1 vote for deletion and 1 undecided, but that 1 vote for deletion contains an argument sufficient, in my opinion, to determine the outcome. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn: (Changed !vote to Endorse after seeing the deleted text) Apparently, in the year since the AfD, there's been a TV documentary and books (fully catalogued) published. The only arguments in the AfD were a lack of sources, which made it look like a hoax, but these new sources destroy those arguments...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Book - singular, self-published. The whole point is that the sources used were much the same in the new draft and shared the same flaws. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In publishing lango, self-published is a synonymous for vanity publishing, which means that the author is the publisher of the work. Even on the Wikipedia definition clearly states that self-publishing is the publishing of a book or other media by the author of those works, instead of third-party publishers. Which is precisely the case. The book was published by the Aset Ka, not by Luis Marques, who is the author. This is NOT a self-published work, but actually a work published by a Portuguese publisher that has released a book written by one of their most respected experts in the Asetian tradition. Again I see no problems in the validity of the organization. The problem here is residing in belief. But belief is not in case. They can believe whatever they desire, as an encyclopedia, we are merely showing information related to their tradition that can be useful as reference to anyone interested in the subject! Plain and simple. GustavusPrimus (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible for me to see the deleted article text, that could affect my !vote, I am simply going on what I have been told about the subject...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The documentary was in the version of the article deleted at afd (diff). The only newly-cited source is the Asetian Bible. Endorse. —Cryptic 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Changed from Overturn after seeing the deleted text. All sources are published by the organisation...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral after a more thorough examination...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn
  The problem here seems to lie in belief. If this organization actually exists (which it appears to do), it has the right to claim whatever they believe in. The article just needs to give a definition of the concept of the Order, what they claim to be, what they believe in, and other good info to give on the organization. There is no way calling it a "hoax" will be an argument to delete it. We shouldn't focus on the tradition itself, since it's a matter of belief; we should aim to inform the people about what this organization claims to be, their beliefs and tradition. We are not evaluating their traditions.
  This organization, which shows itself behind the name "Order of Aset Ka", officially exists as, at least, a publisher. If they exist as a publisher, they are an organization. Since the organization "Aset Ka" publishes books about itself regarding religion and metaphysics, we are not here to judge their knowledge and the authenticity of their beliefs. Their book is legal, which makes it legal to quote it as a reference. Even it if it's published by the organization.
  People may see this organization as new-age, since it showed itself not long ago. What existed before it appeared doesn't matter. But it's legal to claim that existed for thousands of years, since it's based on belief. They believe they existed for thousands of years, and they justify it through religion and belief: Fine!, they have that right. People don't have to believe it.
  Selthius (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This user has no other edits outside this topic. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: Changed from Overturn to Endorse to Neutral. After a more thorough examination of the text, the article looks like it would be OK with a bit of cleanup (sorry for being so indecisive)...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The article seems to be quite revamped from the version it was deleted last year, made more clear and verifiable. The new book provided as reference is a published work. Verifiable enough. The article complies to Wikipedia standards and it is not a hoax. Period. Cristina Torres (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The book is WP:SELFPUBlished by a member of Aset ka, see this forum discussion[1], so it's not an independient source. The book appears to be a fluff job to make the order look important, so it's probably not reliable for notability and for antiguity of the order. If you look at their website, you will see that the whole site is based on the contents of the book. This is either a hoax or an attempt to give a patina of respectability to a recently created non-notable order. The only reliable source that we have is one mention on a TV program, wich probably makes only a passing mention. This article is not verifiable because we have no reliable independient sources to check anything that their book is claiming, and almost fails WP:N because we have only one independient source asserting its notability, and we are not sure of just how much notability it's asserting. Notice that we have absolutely no confirmation that the order actually exists out of the book and the website and there are 99% chances that it's an elaborate hoax by the book's author and a few friend. It isn't even a notable hoax, since it hasn't been covered anywhere as a successful hoax, so we can't base the article on that. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn 1 "The book appears to be a fluff job to make the order look important" - A fluff job to make the order look important? The book does not even talk about the order, but merely describes a spiritual tradition in terms of beliefs, dogmas, ritual symbolism and theology. I am starting to repeat myself, but I ask again that nonsense comments are not made by people that have not read the book or at least have no clue of what they are talking about. Otherwise clearly misinformed comments like this one would not happen.
    

2 "The only reliable source that we have is one mention on a TV program, wich probably makes only a passing mention." - One hour is not only a passing mention. So again, these comments would classify as lack of research or direct unilateral speculation.
3 "Notice that we have absolutely no confirmation that the order actually exists out of the book and the website" - This argument was already addressed for several times in this discussion as being wrong. There is no way to contest the existence of the order as an organization, that is even registered officially.
I am sorry if I start sounding too harsh, but it gets really hard to deal when we see so many misinformed arguments and claims out of the lack of research, and constantly see people doing comments running in circles, which is clearly against the purpose of this review. GustavusPrimus (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but anyone in Spain can register any number of organizations with just the signatures of three persons. Ok, so, the book is a fluff job to promote the "asetian knowledge", the order makes heavy usage of that book like you can see on their website [2], and it appears that the book was written by a member of the order. The title of the TV program is "Causas Comuns", and we have no proof that it's not making just a passing mention. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I am sorry, but using the argument that in Spain just 3 persons can register an organization, is again speculation. There is any verifiability that the Aset Ka is a 3 persons registered organization? This is just pure speculation, how many people they might or might not have. To be honest I see this as unilateral view. There are countless other organizations, probably even much smaller than the Aset Ka, and I don't see people question their credibility solely based on "anyone can register one with 3 signatures." It is happening in here because they are a religious organization that has quite uncommon ideals. And this is why people are against them, because of their beliefs. But the Inquisition has ended quite a long time ago. Their credibility should not be questioned out of religion. This is very wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavusPrimus (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's the article that has to show with sources that it's something more than a hoax organization with just the signatures of three persons, given the lack of independient sources on the organization actually existing and the doubts arosen here. And it's happening here because of lack of sources, not because of any problem with beliefs or religions. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - perhaps a strange article but certainly not cruft or non-notable. COI issues maybe a concern but with diligent cleanup and proper use of verifiable sources, I can't see an issue with a very strange but interesting article. Restore last sourced version. -- EhsanQ ^(talk) 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn
  I have seen people using forums as arguments in this discussion, so if that is the case, I would also advise to consult this forum, which has a very long, 5-page, debate on the Aset Ka, with 238 posts and 9,681 unique views, making the Aset Ka thread one of the most read ever in this forum, that alone is one of the biggest occult forums on the web. The thread even surpasses in replies and unique views the sticky thread at the top of the forum, which is viewed by literally everyone. This directly addresses the question of notability, representing the interest of the occult community on the subject. The views field actually speaks for itself, since the forum counts only unique IP addresses, so a scheme of page-reload would not work in here. Check the reference forum here [3].
  Also, in this threat several people talk as actually researchers on this Aset Ka organization. Not people from the organization, but researching it for long, which adds as another reference as the notability of the order. This takes us to another website, which is an independent forum entirely or at least highly dedicated to discussion of the Asetian tradition and the Aset Ka as an occult order. This forum is now locked for long and used to be part of a bigger website, which was a portal from a group that entitle themselves as Vampire Watchers Group, aiming at the research of vampirism, world traditions and the occult. Their portal used to keep several information and documentation regarding the Aset Ka, as well as vampirism, where this forum used to be a part of. Check the reference forum here [4].
  The VWG website that was highly active between 2001 and 2006, completely went down in 2007, which they claimed to be a problem in the backups of the old server. A new, but highly small and irrelevant, website was put online in 2007, that also has some comments on the Aset Ka, but nothing really important and seems like it was abandoned soon after for reasons that the VWG refused to make clear, but that is documented on their own forum. Check the reference site here [5].
  24.85.70.22 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sustain delete The sources given do not support the article. If the Portuguese TV magazine does, please provide a quotation and translation of the key part. A TV interview is not necessarily an independent source-- if it just consists of someone presumably associate with the site making bald assertions,that is not independent . If restored, stubbify to the only part that has any evidence, which is that the forum exists. DGG (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn It is not a TV interview, but a documentary on the subject. No one related with the organization was interviewed. So it is an independent source. Besides as already mentioned, that is only one of the referred sources. However I do agree that the article can be cleaned up and improved, as you said, which I was about to work on when it was deleted. GustavusPrimus (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've struck out the second and third "overturn" !votes by this user. Deor (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn As the user that posted the new article, made the corrections and has fully rewritten most of the previous poor article's misconceptions, as well as uploaded the 2 new images, including the book cover, copyright licence information and associated ISBN. This new article is clearly being victimized by ideas biased by old research and clearly lack of honest research over the subject. Wether we like it or not, and how much of their Ancient Egyptian religious claims might be arrogant and doubtful, the Order of Aset Ka remains one of the very few references worldwide in what comes to Vampiric Traditions in the complex occult scene. They present probably the only accessible tradition with a predatory spirituality backbone and an Ancient Egyptian theology. Their tradition, theology, tenets, beliefs and spiritual system is detailedly described in a published work, which deserves its credit alone. And this IS verifiable. But not only verifiable, as it is even supported by books, not only published by the Aset Ka, as other publications, some written in English, others written in Portuguese, as the books and papers published by Ordem Peninsular, as well as TV documentaries, and workshops and thesis debated in Portuguese universities that are in no terms related with the Order of Aset Ka, that really does not relate with any outside institutions. The argument used that this new book is not yet mentioned in other published works makes no sense, since it is a recent book, so it could not yet be referenced on that scale. However, the tradition and the Aset Ka as an occult organization was mentioned on other works, as it was already referenced.
  

Using the argument that the book is self-published over and over is merely a theatric attempt to discredit a valuable work. Self published information is like when someone writes information about himself on a website. But if you want to use the term in what comes to real publications, then self publishing means an author publishing his own work, being his own editor and publisher, which is not the case of the work we are talking about. This work is published by a registered and credentialed Portuguese publisher, which can be verified on the appropriated government institution, not a work published by the author. It is even fully written in the English language, which is a preferable reference source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Being one of the few publications in what concerns this very specific field of the occult, which is real life vampirism in spiritual traditions, makes the book Asetian Bible certainly one of the most notable sources and references on the theme. What I think it is causing most confusing and uninformed votes and opinions in this deletion review is actually the fact that most people commenting against the article have in fact no real information, background or scholarship to comment on it. People that are actually in the occult scene, as researchers, especially in the niche that is vampirism and predatory spirituality, would certainly understand the point of the arguments defending Overturn and endorse it, seeing the clear notability of this article in what comes to the niche of information in question, and being nevertheless encyclopedic knowledge.

Ultimately all this discussion sums up to one single thing: is the Aset Ka a real organization or a hoax webpage created by some kid online? This was the reason stated for deletion of the article one year ago. The answer to this is easily verifiable with no doubts. They ARE an organization. They HAVE published work.
If their tradition, claims and beliefs are true or false, is out of subject in this discussion, and concerns only the followers of their tradition. But if the organization exists? To that, the answer is undeniable. So let's stop this whole nonsense debate once and for all, please...
Hellensmith37 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• • All references to Aset Ka used to compile this article are recently published and self-referential. Any objective evaluation of an article on Aset Ka or the Aset Ka bible has to take into account the contradictory claims made by the organization, the lack of published commentary of its publications, lack of any verifiable information detailing its constituency, lack of any evidence for this new order having existed more than a few years ago, and the original research employed to analyze the ludicrous claims made in its source texts. Even though various proponents of the offer have made vague reference to supposedly scholarly works on vampirism, the occult, and ancient Egyptian mythology, I've yet to see any of them provide coverage specifically of the Aset Ka in anything close to a reliable source. The relative obscurity and newness of the Aset Ka order are reason enough not to have an encyclopedia article on it, as so far it appears to be little more than a recent curiosity in Portugese occult circles and some online forums. The Aset Ka may well be an interesting topic for some fans of contemporary vampire mythology, but it is far from being a notable organization. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn

Once again, I think that, since it's an official organization, there's no point in endorsing deletion. What they claim to be doesn't matter. People, at least, get able to know what they claim to be. About what the age the organization claims to have, all the beliefs that are into this subject: It isn't relevant. We aren't here to judge the religion and their beliefs. We are here to judge the contents of the article, remaking it in a way that it won't say "It is" but "It claims to be". It's just information. There's a really good article about the Loch Ness Monster. "The Loch Ness Monster is an alleged animal, identified neither as to a family or species, but claimed to inhabit Scotland's Loch Ness." You see. We aren't going to judge this knowledge. Some people believe it exists, I personally don't (but what do you care if I do?). But I will never want to delete this knowledge/information. Because people find it useful. Some cryptozoologists, for example, find it useful and interesting. Some students of vampire folklore, egyptology and "real-life" vampirism are interested in knowledge about the Aset Ka. Isn't it fair? I endorse restore. Selthius (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

 Remark: It would seem that at least two single purpose accounts are voting to overturn. Gustavus Prime also looks like a SPA to promote the book and the order, see his first edit [6] --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Allow me to defend myself. I registered my account on Wikipedia quite recently, even after both of the Aset Ka articles were created. I did see their new article out of a simple search, and that motivated me to my first Wikipedia edit, on the same theme I was researching, which is on the Energy Vampires article. Since I am an anthropologist doing research work on this field seems only but natural to me that things have followed this path. I didn't make more edits yet because no one gave me the time to do them, since as I was going to start to work on the Aset Ka article, that other user posted, it got removed, reason why this whole review started. And now I am actively participating in here for an unbiased and scholar view of it, being probably the only voter qualified to even comment on the subject. If you check the article history you can even see my first edit on the Aset Ka article, fixing an error in the ISBN link from the original poster.
  
• As for the other accounts, I can't really comment since I have honestly no clue of their purpose. GustavusPrimus (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would be happy for that explanation, if it wasn't because of this timeline:

1. 20:39 to 22:47, 12 May 2008 User:Hellensmith37 uploadas 4 different images that she will later use on recreating Aset Ka article
2. 23:01 12 May 2008 SPA Hellensmith37 creates Aset Ka article[7] after almost 12 months of staying deleted
3. 23:22, 12 May 2008 GustavusPrimus is created
4. 23:50, 12 May 2008 GustavusPrimus makes an edit to Energy vampire including a wikilink to Aset ka, making a lengthy explanation about the Aset ka book and including the ISBN, which is already on the Aset Ka article, in the 50 minutes since the article is re-created, he has found the new article by chance on a search, he has created the account, and he has written a shining review of the book and the Aset Ka on a different article [8]
5. 23:51, 12 May 2008 GustavusPrimus corrects the ISBN link on Aset Ka [9]
6. 00:39, 13 May 2008 GustavusPrimus fixes the ref on Energy Vampire[10]
7. 00:45, 13 May 2008 GustavusPrimus removes a 1 year old vandalism warning from an IP talk page [11]

• Notice that the warning was made because of the IP leaving messages on Aset Ka article warning that it was a joke by his friend Ignacio [12][13][14]

1. 06:12, 15 May 2008 GustavusPrimus makes a post on the talk page of the admin that speedy deleted the images on the article[15] where he:

• claims that the old article was deleted due to an act of vandalism (the warning he removed)
• says that "'This article and images, uploaded by the user Hellensmith37, are not a copy of the old material that was deleted a year ago (...) double check the old article and compare it to the new one and you will see how it cannot be claim to be a copy of previously deleted material" but the current history was not available at that time, so, GustavusPrime, how did you know the state of the old article unless you had already seen it one year ago?
• says that the 2 deleted images were "both well uploaded under the guidelines and with the correct information on copyright and fair use. Both images were before never present on Wikipedia, and again substantiated as being a copy of previously deleted material". GustavusPrime, how can you be so sure that they were never present on wikipedia, and how come you knew the details about the copyright on the three different images that you didn't upload yourself?
• lies about the amount of sources on the article "we can nevertheless deny its verifiability through published works. And in this case, there are several ones mentioned, even an international publication"

1. 09:02, 15 May 2008 GustavusPrimus claims that the organization is legit because it has its own ISBN prefix. Notice the same fallacy as the organization thing: any organization can request its own ISBN prefix provided it has the money for it (it's expensive, see a list or ISBN agencies that give ISBN prefixes, no questions asked) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anetode&diff=prev&oldid=212563851
2. 13:41, to 13:49 15 May 2008 The history of Aset Ka is restored "(43 revisions restored: It is not a recreation, it has more references, et al)"[16]
3. 15:16, 15 May 2008 Anetode checks the old article and deletes it again saying "(bullshit: this was a hoax, it is a hoax, it uses the same self-published references. Take it to WP:DELREV.)" (btw, this is the real reason why this whole review started, not the fact that the article got removed)
4. 16:31, 15 May 2008 GustavusPrimus lies on this DRV about the sources on the article "The article offers more than 1 source: It refers TV documentaries and other books." (notice the plurals) [17]
5. 14:48, 16 May 2008 GustavusPrimus replies to me that "The book does not even talk about the order" but his first edit on wikipedia included a reference that read "Marques, Luis. Asetian Bible. Aset Ka, 2007 ISBN 978-9899569409" where he puts the book and the name of the order together. Putting this together with how the Aset Ka website consists almost enterely of references and quotes of this book and how the author is member of the order, I don't think I need to read the book to know that it was intended to promote the order and give it a patina of credibility and legitimacy. [18]

• So, Gustavus, your history about how you found the article is not believable specially since you showed knowledge about a deleted article that you couldn't see at that moment and about images that you didn't upload yourself, you lied to the deleting admin about the sources on the article, and then you lied again on this DRV about the amount of sources. So, no, I don't believe you, I think that this is a hoax, I think that the book is a fluff job, I'm sure that the documentary only makes a trivial coverage of the order, and I'm this near of opening a sockpuppet case linking you to all the SPA accounts on this DRV. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• I also love how Gustavus' writing style is so similar to the one from Hellensmith37 and Selthius. Also lovable is timing at May 16 on this DRV, when Hellen posted for the last time at 19:13 [19], then Gustavus posted at 19:28 [20] and at 19:40 [21], and then Selthius posted at 20:40 [22]. The fact that the only other post by Selthius parrots several Gustavus' arguments only makes it funnier [23] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not here to deal with insults based on ignorance. Again all the arguments you used are based on assumptions and speculation. And a clear mental handicap, I would say. Now I am even most of the other users in here, according to you. Well, I don't know how this works around here, but I would like that an admin would check all of our IP addresses, and see if they match. Or if they don't, if any of them is behind a proxy or firewall that would allow to put this elaborated scheme that your delusional mind claims. The point is that I am pretty sure those things won't match, since I don't know who Selthius is. We write in a similar style? Ok, now your arguments changed from misinformation and ignorance to clearly being ridiculous. I won't keep defending myself on things that I don't need to, I already have done enough to defend a clear non-biased opinion upon this article, now it is not up to me to keep judging and argumenting against some old circular and poorly researched ideas.
As for the ISBN point, again you show lack of information and research. I did not said they merely have an ISBN prefix, but that they are registered as an official publisher, under the Portuguese government, and that they have that kind of ISBN fully protected blocks. It has nothing to do with the link you provided and no, I am sorry, but it is not only about the money for it. There are several conditions that are required to be an official publisher like the Aset Ka, and especially in Portugal, it is not for any company to get that far. But anyways, I see you are not interested in real research, but just in blind attacks.
You can call liar as you wish, I will not comment on it again, since I am not here to get as low as that. But yes, as you said, everything is so "lovable". I like your use if irony to bring some false credibility. In your arguments you used the words "I am sure of" and "this is" in things that are clear lies you created, in subjects that can easily be verified, but that you're not interested on verifiability, but you have your own interests in this thread, which I already got you. So no more words on it. I just pity that things keep going forward by the hands of people that have no mind, no skill and no knowledge to even judge what they are commenting upon. Lie as you wish, insult as you wish... seems that is all you are capable of at this point. A typical sign of lack of arguments. Should I lecture some psychology on this? No, better not. I rest my case. GustavusPrimus (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The only independent source is a Portuguese "TV magazine" show. The cite is deficient, pointing at the series instead of a unique episode, but even a good cite would leave us with difficulties even verifying the existence of the episode, much less its content. And "TV magazine" shows are not the most reliable sources, and frequently duped. And that's the only independent cite. If your sources fail to even convince us of the existence of the organization, they're insufficient to pass WP:N.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Several books were mentioned along the article, and although most are written in Portuguese, at least one is published in English. What is the point if the author is part of the organization or not? His opinions and ideas on their tradition might be biased, but the fact of existing an author writing about an organization, being part of it or not, already proves the fact of that organization existing. The concept of "independent source" is being wrongly applied here. What is at debate is not the claims of their religion, but the existence of an organization under the name of Aset Ka or not. And this is verifiable. Do you understand what I mean? Sometimes I just fear I am not making myself fully clear with my arguments, and probably being misunderstood. GustavusPrimus (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't prove the organization exists. I can pull a number of books of my shelves that detail non-existant organizations. Furthermore, just because an organization exists doesn't mean it's notable; the 'Arvard Yard Boyz(spelling?) exists, but even if they swear in print that they're the direct descendents of war simulations done at 17th century Harvard, it still doesn't make them notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But this organization exists. It has an address, making it physical, it is officially registered in Portugal. All that make it real... GustavusPrimus (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse If all we have are primary self-referential sources then this is going to fail WP:V. This alos has a rather desparate self-promotional air about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion an article citing solely self-published sources fails WP:V and WP:N, whether or not it is a hoax.--Hut 8.5 10:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• 'Overturn

Actually I don't believe I'm GustavusPrime. I really am not. And I think I write a little bit better in English than he/she does. But how irrelevant that is! I'm someone who is interested in this subject, and I registered after seeing it. The steps were: www.wikipedia.org -> English -> Search for "Aset Ka" -> "This article is under discussion..." -> I saw it, I registered. I think this is a good excuse. Can't people have specific interests? If I do, shouldn't I be here? Only people that don't have any knowledge about the subject, and only people who have no interest on the subject can be here? About the timings, that's ridiculous. It would be a pleasure to meet him/her (I think), but I really don't know him/her. I guess this is running away from the subject, since conspiracies about plans to rule the world won't help decide if this article should come back or not.

The reasons I think an article about the Aset Ka should be put on are the following:

1st - It's, as far as people know, a new organization about which people know little about.

2nd - It has an interesting book on specific subjects like vampirism and egyptology.

3rd - The only "self-published" source there would be, would be the book. Why wouldn't it be cited if it has a relation to the Order?

4th - It doesn't need to be notable to the world to be on Wikipedia. It is notable to some interested persons. If you think this subject isn't of interest in the vampire community, you're wrong.

5th - It's no Loch Ness Monster. Selthius (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've struck out the second and third "overturn" !votes by this user. Deor (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Quantifica

Quantifica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No conflict of interest. Thanks for your answer Stifle. But can you tell me why in what way my article was advertisement? What should I change? I used articles made for competitors and nobody seem to think their articles were advertisement: Gartner, Forrester Research, Informa... Check these out. Bebeagrafe (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, the page was deleted because it was an advertizement, not because of any conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: there were, as I recall, 3 sources in French. Are the sources neutral and verifiable, and do they support the content of the article as written? If yes, then I would vote to list; otherwise, endorse deletion. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Advert and COI apply. Bebeagrafe, stop trying to deny COI - unless I mis-read you, you admit it here. Your original user name was Quantichristo. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse: Advert and COI...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Jacobs

Bruce Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted last year because he was just a "Local radio talk show host in Phoenix". But actually hes also a national sports anchor on Fox Sports Radio.[24] Im guessing the article didn't mention this. A few people in the AFD mentioned this but as the admin put it "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. As for notability I think hosting a show on a major sports network with 300+ affiliates across the US is notable. Just like the other Fox hosts:Andrew Siciliano, Ben Maller, and J. T. the Brick-- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. Someone should have at least checked the sources, even if the one editor did not care to provide them. We do not automatically default to delete. MrPrada (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion unless the sources (plural) are actually found and cited, rather than talked about. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist the article did mention it: "and a syndicated weekend sports talk show on Fox Sports Radio." The article as deleted was extremely promotional in tone, and I'd suggest improving it with a more encyclopedic way -- and with sources DGG (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist: Seems notable-ish, but relisting would be best...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion as not notable. That's a source from Fox itself, so that's not independient coverage. Looking at WP:PEOPLE, I can't see that he has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field", and I don't think that being a radio host on a pair of shows qualifies, so he is still non-notable and the deletion was correct. The decision was based on the sources currently available, it's not the closing admin's fault if nobody wants to provide the sources that *could* save the article from deletion. As for now, the only new source given still doesn't assert enoguh notability, so the closure should still stand. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Beren

Steve Beren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Steveberen (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) I'd like to draw attention to the deletion of this article. The article, which has been on Wikipedia since 2006, was previously (back in 2006, I believe) suggested for removal because of non-neutrality. This was early in its existence, and was resolved quickly, and the article remained up through 2006, 2007, and until earlier today. I'm the subject of the article, and the original author, but the accuracy and neutrality of the article was not questioned further. I believe the decision to delete was wrong. There are a multiplicity of factors applying to this biographical article. In the proposed-deletion discussion, some of these were dismissed to one extent or another, in my opinion inappropriately when considered against existing guidelines. Moreover, even if one factor (failed former candidacy) is not notable in and of itself, and even if another factor (former communist/aheist turned motivational speaker and born-again Christian) is not notable in and of itself, the totality of these and several other factors equals sufficient notability. A more careful reading of my part of the proposed-delete discussion would lead to a different conclusion, I believe. Please review carefully and consider the above rationale for undeletion - Steve Beren, 5/14/08, 8:44 pm PDT

• Overturn. I find the lack of a closing rationale rationale troubling. The main argument seems to have been that he failed WP:POLITICIAN, but as Les Grand pointed out, he met WP:BIO, with numerous verified second and third party sources[25], such as: Canada Free Press[26], Conservative Voice[27], Seattle Times[28], Seattle Post Intelligencer[29], New York Times[30], Seattle Times[31], Seattle Times[32], Seattle Post Intelligencer[33], Seattle Post Intelligencer[34], Seattle Times[35], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[36], NEws Tribune[37], Seattle Times[38], Seattle Post Intelligencer[39], Seattle Times[40], Seattle Times[41], Seattle Times[42], Crosscut Seattle[43]. This is more then enough to meet WP:BIO, even if he has never been a successful candidate. MrPrada (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• The New York Times link above is broken, which is problematic, because a full-length New York Times article that has somebody as its primary subject would be prima facie evidence of notability. Also, many of the above sources only display the first part of the story, not enough for a reader to determine the nature of the coverage (unless one were to register on their website); if an article merely describes the campaign or the results of the election, this would only establish notability if the candidate won or came close to winning. Unless I can get more info., I would relist to get a broader consensus. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist per 69.140, but Steve, please bear in mind the autobiography rules. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist but write carefully. The NYT article is a short 491 word article from 1970, about his success in suing for free radio time back when he was running on the Socialist Workers Party ticket for State Assembly in NY, long before he became a conservative Republican in Seattle. Paywall,but still a usable reference. DGG (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist: The sources seem good enough, asserting notability...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Relist While some of the sources give trivial coverage[44][45], others give actual coverage of the subject [46][47][48]. The NYT source[49] seems to assert that he is notable in spite of being a minor candidate. Basically, he presents himself again and again, and gets resources and attention despite failing to be elected. See also DGG's comment on this source. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per MrPrada and because the bio subject was a major party's nominee for Congress, not just a contender for the nomination. JamesMLane t c 12:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted; I don't see any real notability in an article only the subject seems to want, and I think it disadvantageous to Wikipedia to undelete this article until such time as there is someone without a WP:COI who wants this article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kremlin (bar)

Kremlin (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like to bring to your attention the deletion of an article I created. I created the article Kremlin (bar) was was nominated for deletion after having undergone some revisions (the addition of two other identically-named bars to the article, as far as I remember). This is despite the Kremlin in Northern Ireland being notable as Northern Ireland's first gay bar. Unfortunately I knew very little of its history or anything else about the bar, and I had hoped other editors might be able to expand it from being merely a stub.

Excuse me for not following normal procedure here - I am in between Wikipedia user accounts, and I'm not sure what editing powers an IP-assigned editor has in this regard. Please feel free to tidy this up and submit a proper review on my behalf.

The article was deleted on the 31st of January this year, by four votes to one against (not including the nominator). --90.206.36.142 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

originally posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sexuality and gender[50] ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. Appears to have been closed corectly. DRV is not AfD round 2, and we can't overturn without solid, policy-based reasons. Sorry. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• question Do we have any independent sources claiming that it is the first gay bar in Northern Ireland? I couldn't find anyone else making the claim? That would be a claim of notability if it were independently sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• (I double voted)Endorse. No reasons given to overturn the closure. Some independient sources showing notability would be helpful --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Lifebaka. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse or Source & relist: If it's the first gay bar in Northern Island, 'relist, else endorse...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That was brought up at the AfD. Unless you've found a source, there's no reason to relist. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion No reasons given to overturn the closure. As for the "first gay bar in ireland" wich would give it enough notability to be restored, there was and there is a lack of reliable independient sources for the claim. There are lots of similar baseless claims made by pubs: "First pub opened on xxxx", "First pub to do xxxx", etc --Enric Naval (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion DRV does not give you a second shot at AFD, and the first AFD was closed correctly. No independent sources cited by the article. Hut 8.5 11:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)