List of Muslims involved in a crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This list was created so people like Osama Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta could be grouped together. When we have List of Muslim writers and poets, I dont see why there's a problem with List of Muslims involved in a crime. Some people suggested a rename to List of Islamist terrorists. This is a useful research tool for people researching on Islamist terrorism. Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by deleting admin: I speedied this (pretermitting an AfD debate, which I would normally not do, but this situation seemed clear to me) on the ground that a list of this nature is inherently divisive and offensive. Wikipedia should not contain List of Muslims involved in a crime, nor List of Jews involved in a crime, List of Roman Catholics involved in a crime, List of Episcopalians involved in a crime, List of Mennonites involved in a crime, List of Hindus involved in a crime, List of atheists involved in a crime, List of agnostics involved in a crime, List of pagans involved in a crime, and so on. I am normally about as "inclusionist" an administrator as one is likely to find, but creating lists of this nature is an open-ended invitation to constant edit-warring and the expression of hatred. Newyorkbrad 23:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, how about a List of Islamist terrorists then? My aim isnt to create divisions or hatred, it is to group together all these people who were motivated Islamically (as is explained in Islamist terrorism). Is there any way to do this? Here's my main point: Is it too much to ask for a page where Osama Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta can be listed together? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A List of Islamist terrorists, provided it's well-sourced and composed of only those people who have been convicted of acts of terrorism motivated by Islamist ideologies, would be an entirely different page than a list of every Muslim who has ever committed a crime. I suggest creating such a page and seeing what happens. FCYTravis 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'll think about that.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further clarification: I would support the existence of a well-sourced and policed List of Islamist terrorists. That is a list which can be complete, verified and bears a properly defined and rational relationship to a topic of encyclopedic interest; to wit, Islamist terrorism. FCYTravis 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, with the caveat that such a list would probably inspire (a) an article called List of Christian terrorists, and look at the edit war that is Christian terrorism, and (b) an article called List of Jewish terrorists and we can all predict what's going to happen with that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Not really a POV fork, and an unfortunate consequence of current American attitude in a lot of ways. If it should be deleted, it should be deleted based on the consensus of editors, not of one. I understand Brad's action in this, and while I'm sympathetic, it was improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy - To allow this article to stand would set a really really really bad precedent that would invite and probably demand creation of all of the above lists. FCYTravis 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if a consensus of editors decided that this was a precedent worth having, then we really couldn't complain. That's not a discussion for here, though. What speedy criteria did this meet, since you're endorsing this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The speedy criteria that says listing a pile of disparate people together who have nothing more in common than the fact that they A. committed a crime and B. believe in <God/Allah/Bob/Buddha/goldfish/Darwin/nothing> is the height of insanity. A List of Islamist terrorists is an entirely different (and defensible) matter. FCYTravis 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So there's no legitimate defense. Gotcha. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • G10, possibly? Incidentally, CSD T1 is for "Divisive or inflammatory" templates - there should be a G-category equivalent, I reckon, as G10 isn't quite the same. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • G10? No, it doesn't attack anyone. T1 is for templates for good reason, and should never be expanded past that due to its inherent subjectivity (t1 suffers in the same way). Here's an idea - how about actually overturning bad speedy deletions as opposed to attempting to retrofit an existing criterion on to make us feel better? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, trying to shoehorn a patently irrelevant criterion would be pretty pointless, but I do think the article, furthering as it does a POV agenda against a group of people, is debatably in G10 territory. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist and delete not speedy, but would be a bad article to keep. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• An article of this type is not suitable for Wikipedia. There are literally millions of people of any given religion involved in crimes. If recreated it will be deleted. For the record I strongly object to those who take this utterly fatuous, trollish listing for review seriously. Wake up! --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy, because no AfD could fail to delete. That we're even arguing about this speaks volumes. What's next, List of articles that aren't encyclopedic but don't fit a specific deletion criteria, so keep because we haven't self-flagellated enough this week? Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to clean the trolls out of the temple, perhaps? --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't be the only one who doesn't think this has a strong chance of being a worthwhile article. This is not some bizarre, worthless concept. Pathetic and disturbing, yes, but not worthless. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only if we create a parallel list for Christians. I've got the police blotter from today's paper in front of me. I've got some drunk drivers, probation violators, meth lab operators, etc. Pretty usual stuff for this part of the country. From their last names they're probably all Christians. Whether they're all notable I leave up to you. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Christian crime is a topic that has play, then we absolutely should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, pray tell, is Christian crime? What defines "Christian crime" as opposed to "a crime committed by a Christian?" FCYTravis 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Damned if I know, I fail to see how that's relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, being NPOV, shouldn't we add Muslims convicted of offences under sharia law too? This is patently absurd - why are we discussing this. Stop it!--Doc^g 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Go for it! And why are we discussing this? Because we never got the opportunity the first time. And this isn't the forum to discuss what you're bringing up anyway, that's for the AfD that should have occurred. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy This is not a suitable article for Wikipedia. Whether or not it has the potential to be a worthwhile article, what it would actually become is a battleground for edit-warring and POV-pushing. As an example, given the fuss that this far less contentious article produced, I believe the administrator made the right choice here. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - closing admin does not state a legitimate speedy deletion rationale. "Offensive" is not a speedy criterion and neither is "divisive." While this article should definitely be deleted on a number of grounds, it does not qualify for speedy deletion and the admin went far out of process here. Otto4711 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a game. We do not do things merely to say that we did everything exactly according to the rules. What you are arguing is process for process' sake, and that is a concept which has been thoroughly rejected time and time again. FCYTravis 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't suggest following process for the sake of process. Allowing this speedy deletion to stand serves as precedent for giving admins a license to speedily delete anything they don't like under the guise of "protecting" us from the "offensive" and "divisive." I would prefer that admins not have such a license. Otto4711 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not anarchy, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Otto's point would have greater merit if the community (1) did not trust me and other administrators to use good judgment and delete on this type of basis only in clear situations, and (2) did not trust itself to reverse any unwarranted deletions that might occur. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, but this must have its scope restricted to people who use Islam as their justification for crimes. -Amarkov moo! 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy of this inherently unencyclopedic article. Nandesuka 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy, at least under this title. Does the author expect us to include every Muslim shoplifter, jaywalker, or money launderer? That would be highly unencyclopedic material. Biruitorul 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy, totally unencyclopedic, basically worthless information, offensive concept. A list of Islamist terrorists is one thing, but a list of "Muslims involved in a crime" is, forgive my bluntness, stupid. K. Lásztocska 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of this indiscriminate list under CSD G10: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity." This was just an attack page against Muslims, and, contrary to Matt57's claims that it was designed to discuss Islamic-motivated terrorism, it contained people like Mike Tyson whose crimes had nothing at all to do with that. Furthermore, as noted above, allowing this would set the precedent for dozens of other mischeivous lists. *** Crotalus *** 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as G10 (or WP:SNOW if nothing else will do.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Gah, keep deleted.--Doc^g 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. WP:SNOW undoubtedly applies: WP:OR, gross failure of WP:NPOV, clearly exists solely in order to promote an agenda, chronic WP:BLP problems, indiscriminate (Involved? To what extent? Crime? Of what severity? Muslims? Why not Methylated Wesletarians?). There is no encyclopaedic topic "muslims involved in crime", so a list to support such a topic is by definition problematic. As the debate above implies, this is a perfect example of something we just don't need. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm counting 7 statements which are either patently untrue, or entirely debatable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I counted far more than that, and that was in the deleted version which FCYTravis had already purged of quite a few blatantly unsourced ones. Oh, wait, you mean you're accusing me of lying, right? Well screw you. I saw the deleted content, and it was shit. Pure, unmitigated, unrelieved, venomous, worthless, POV-pushing shit. Pick a group against whom you have an irrational hatred, collect together the names of some people you heard somewhere belong to that group, scan the list for anything that looks less than squeaky-clean, Bob's your uncle, one article. You know something? Sometimes you give inclusionists a bad name. Why the fuck would we want to undelete this festering heap of faeces and then debate it for five days before doing the inevitable (just as we have with other similar articles in the past? What good does that do? Do you genuinely think the encyclopaedia is well-served by putting Mike Tyson and Osama Bin Laden ina list just to show how evil Islam is? I despair, Jeff, I really do. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this thingy on my watchlist? There has to be a rational explanation. At any rate, the edit summary certainly cuaght my attention. JzG, I don't know what's going on, but deep breath, please! Aim at a more diplomatic delivery. Thanks in advance. El_C 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa whoa whoa. I'm not accusing you of lying at all, you don't have a history of lying. I am saying that I think you're entirely misled on a number of issues concerning this situation. Be frustrated with me if you want, but inclusionists can't have a good name around here anyway, considering the hostility. I don't think this is an inevitable deletion, sorry, and I certainly don't think a) you're a liar, or b) that you're correct on this. C'mon man, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, I am probably about as strong an "inclusionist" as there is in the administrator corps. I have said before and will say again that I think we spend far too much institutional time policing the borderlines of notability and eliminating viable, if non-critical, content about local bands and high schools and webcomics. But obsessive absolutism here, as in anything else in life, is no virtue. By going down in flames in another Brian Peppers-like debacle, you do the cause of expansive inclusion no favors. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, these are exactly the articles we have to defend if we have any chance of making this into what it can be. Maybe a true consensus will actually form that this isn't useful, but your deletion has precluded any chance of us coming to one here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff - no. These are precisely the sorts of articles you should not touch with a ten foot pole, because your defence of this article discredits inclusionists. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I haven't decided how I stand on this article, like E_C, this was on my watchlist and I was amazed by the edit summary comment. JzG/Guy, that kind of foul language does nothing to support your case and only emphasizes your incivility as opposed to supporting your position. --Oakshade 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it demonstrates my lack of tolerance of trolling. Jeff has apologised: that was very mature. But he is still, I think, defending this content, which is indefensible. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff is not a troll and no matter how much you dislike someone's position is, it in no way justifies incivility or an edit like you did here. If it's "indefensible," demonstrate you are above it than below it.--Oakshade 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, blatantly unacceptable. What does 'involved' even mean? Do victims count? Christopher Parham (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted totally unsuitable article. -- Nick ^t 11:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; totally unmaintainable, and WP:IAR speedy in this case was correct. Tizio 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fully endorse speedy deletion - I realize the wikipedia is huge, but I'm continuously amazed at how such obviously racist-motivated lists such as this manage to exist for so long in the first place. Tarc 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. Actually, this list was created yesterday and deleted yesterday, so while your concern may be well-placed in the general case, in this instance I think we did okay. Newyorkbrad 17:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh, sorry. Most of the AfD's for contentious articles seem to be over ones that have been around for awhile, it seems. Congrats on nipping one in the bud early. Tarc 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion of badly drawn article.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I shouldn't be assuming anything here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, this is about the strongest endorsement of a Snowball clause deletion I've ever seen. Time to snow-close this one, perhaps. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm strongly opposed to this, especially considering the deletion was entirely improper, and the endorsers have yet to address that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The many endorsers have addressed it by endorsing the deletion. It follows that the deletion was not improper. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A mob of editors are not able to overturn long-standing and widely-accepted speedy-deletion policy. Your logic doesn't follow. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is a longer standing policy even than of the CSD. An IAR deletion homolegated by evident consensus is perfectly in line with policy and process. You seem to be dreaming of another wikipedia - 'Planet Jeffopedia' (to locate it - try the second fork on the left)--Doc^g 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, by IAR, I can just restore it, right? Who's gonna stop me if I'm improving the encyclopedia, right? IAR doesn't take precedence over consensus, and IAR was never intended to be a "screw everyone else" measure. I'm not being rude with you, I would very much appreciate the same in return. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Newyorkbrad used IAR because he believed that sane people would support a deletion - evidently, he was right - consensus is endorsing his act. To restore this by IAR would be bad faith - as it is evident that consensus is against undeletion.--Doc^g 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll unfortunately never see a consensus at this page. DRV has no actual mission at the moment, and people aren't going to run the AfD here. A restoration would be in as good faith as the deletion was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. And you know it.--Doc^g 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't think so. No clue on the contents of this article, but I definitely see this as an encyclopedic topic, as disgusting as the idea is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleeeeeeeeease give me some hope, Jeff, and tell me that you don't actually believe creating lists for every religion of its adherents who have committed any crime, from vandalism to mass murder, is a valid encyclopedic pursuit. FCYTravis 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that no action is going to take place here, it's not clear what speedy closure would accomplish. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would provide a conclusive and expeditious end to a debate in which the participants have already made up their minds. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So you'll be helping to restore this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be making sure that anyone who attempts to restore it will be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And I'll be making sure that anyone who stands in the way of a recreation is stopped. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  On Encyclopedia Dramatica, perhaps. But trolling stops here. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This probably isn't funny enough for them, but I have no clue why you'd bring that up, nor can I see anyone who's trolling here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Per all the relevant arguments above. --Folantin 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I assume what everyone is really discussing is List of notable Muslims involved in a crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not the redirect at this title? Right? Endorsing deletion of the redirect while the target is deleted is a slam dunk under WP:CSD. The actual article isn't a slam dunk under any of the CSD, but it is obvious that the article title was wrong. So make one or more of the encyclopedic variants (list of convicted islamist terrorists, etc...), and if the history of this would be helpful, give it a content review. In the final version, the only unsourced folks are the 9/11 hijackers that were aboard one of the planes, and it seems pretty obvious to me that that list is sourcable with trivial effort. We also have the list/category debate to consider, which I normally try hard to avoid. Suffice it to say, I believe Wikipedia is better off without an article at this title, although the content may be useful for a more reasonable title. Seek consensus on what that title ought to be, but don't restore at this title. GRBerry 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, exactly. A List of Islamist terrorists could be sourced and verified based on convictions and admissions of guilt, and would be an entirely different matter - of course it will still open the door for edit-war city at List of Jewish terrorists, List of Christian terrorists, et al., but those are at least potentially coherent and workable lists. FCYTravis 18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent was delete both List of notable Muslims involved in a crime and the redirect from List of Muslims involved in a crime. The AfD was at the latter title, but by the time I deleted, the article was at the former. I deleted both. Newyorkbrad 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:BEANS. Heather 19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist' for the full time. Though it seems obvious that it will be deleted, the best way of handling this is to go all the way through in the conventional way--interrupting for a speedy--as seen--just adds to the length of he debate. DGG 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Allowing this to exist for five days would just add to the length of the edit war over who could be listed on a page titled List of notable Muslims involved in crime. FCYTravis 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion unless the list is heavily sourced with reliable third-party sites. It must also be acceptable under th terms of the WP:BLP. Cbrown1023 talk 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion my voice is at this point redundant, but I add it anyway. There is no logical link at all between the intersecting categories.Proabivouac 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject clearly notable; article made it clear. Reliable and independent reviews/sources. Non- amateur organist. Does a lot in the area so is notable. Was only nominated in the first place in conjunction with a page (Ian Venables) which was subsequently kept. Page not a stub, spam or offensive. Good quality with pictures etc. Edited by multiple users. Had links to and from the page. Had already survived one debate. Dewarw 21:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. Appropriately notable; no real rationale for deletion. Newyorkbrad 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, do not relist. I think the undue focus on the mud-slinging regarding possible "single purpose accounts" and "conflicts of interest" clouded the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep - Properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. FCYTravis 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh? Am I missing something? Perhaps the AfD should have been let run, but there's nothing encyclopedic here and no reason to undelete.--Doc^g 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  My read of the AFD is that he may be notable to WP:BIO standards (due to available sourcing), but my read of the article history is that the article didn't bother to demonstrate that. Which means that I have a hard time figuring out what the right thing to do with this one, so I'm sitting on the fence. GRBerry 00:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah I'm not seeing that he meets WP:BIO. The closest thing to a non trivial source [1], seems to focus almost entirely on the music program in the church. All of the other mentions of him in print are also trivial when you get down to it, basically they just mention he'll be playing or accompanying organ somewhere and that's it. Great if we were creating a directory of this guy's performances, but that's not an encyclopedia article. I am leaning towards saying it was a good close. --W.marsh 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Dewarw attends the same school at which this man works (he has admitted this to me here), and has been extremely zealous in his support for both this article and that of Ian Venables, a composer of very little notability. The latter article survived its AFD because Dewarw used both his account and an anonymous IP address to spam the debate with positive arguments: a tactic he used again with the Wilderspin debate (as you can see in its records). I won't go over the arguments again (they are in the AFD debate which was decided as a delete) but this man is clearly not notable in any sense. He is just using this as a substitute for an AFD which did not go the way he wanted, and the original decision should stand. If you can source the fact that any musician has performed somewhere, then we would have practically every musician who has played an instrument on wikipedia: that is clearly not what the notability criteria are about; it must be more than just using some local newspapers to prove that he has played an instrument. I wonder why Dewarw spends so much effort on this: he clearly cares very much about these articles, which would suggest more of a personal attachment to the people involved than something objective or encyclopedic. By the way, in the first (group) debate, he was hardly mentioned and it was a 'no consensus'. Clavecin 22:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no mud-slinging. Look closely at Dewarw's behaviour (and that of the IPs on the debate):

Special:Contributions/81.158.2.82

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=84.68.170.87&namespace=

The former IP address started out when I proposed Ian Venables for speedy deletion, then posted overwhelming positive comments in all the AFDs (Venables, Wilderspin). The latter IP address has only been used to edit the debate about John Wilderspin and something about Ian Venables, with similar positive comments - additionally, he claimed:

Keep: John Wilderspin is very famous. I'm a vicar from Florida and i've heard of his organ playing. It's on a CD i recorded at home. How can you delete such a good musician? 84.68.170.87 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) - when, if you do a search on the IP address, it is located in England:

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/ipall.ch?domain=84.68.170.87

So this user is lying to try and win the argument. And he left multiple keep opinions, a few unsigned, the other using different IPs and his username, something he did in the earlier 'Ian Venables' debate. This is not acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. This was just fairly pointed out by me and another user. Clavecin 22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am afraid that I must comment on Calvecin's comments. I completely deny the fact that I have been spamming the debate. Just because there are a few single purpose accounts/ IP addresses, you cannot assume that they are mine. A far as I am concerned they could have easily been made up by other people to make me look like a spammer. Obviously none of this can be proved- so I would like to request that this "mud slinging" is stopped by Calvecin and others, and that we continue with the content of the article, which at the end of the day is the most important thing to concentrate on! i reject to being accused in this pathetic way! As for the article, as above! Dewarw 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• About the "vicar" comment. Although I still deny putting it on Wiki, it could still be true! The vicar could have been in the UK at the time- people do travel. For this reason, and others as above, I would like to ask that all these pathetic arguments are ignored, along with all the so called "spam comments" if you wish to. My "legitimate" comments provide enough reasons why this page should be un-deleted! Dewarw 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Regarding the vicar's comment: firstly, Americans do not usually call themselves 'vicar': it is a British English word; Americans generally use 'pastor' or 'priest'. Secondly, the IP this came from (in England) is completely single-use with regards to Wikipedia. The uses have been only to contribute to the Wilderspin debate and to edit Dewarw's article on Ian Venables. Really, what are the chances? Clavecin 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Detailed Reply: Regarding this IP address: 81.158.2.82: up to the time it contributed to the Wilderspin debate, it had been single-use on Wikipedia: to contribute to Dewarw's Ian Venables article and the deletion debates related to his articles, and to Dewarw's school's article. And look here, three minutes after Dewarw comments, this IP comments, in the same debate [2] and then about ten minutes later, Dewarw again. Similarly here, Dewarw is followed by the IP after four minutes [3] and one minute later Dewarw edits again. And then the other IP address which I mentioned above, the 'vicar' comment, 84.68.170.87, removes the 'unsigned' tags I put on some of Dewarw's contributions before Dewarw replaces them with his own signed tags three minutes later (as he realises he has to sign in to do that): [4] The same minute, the IP adress returns to sign the 'vicar from Florida' comment with that IP address: [5] He even tries to make himself look like an established user by adding the name 'vicar 220', but this does not work, so Dewarw deletes it a minute later: [6]One of the comments added turns out to be another single-use account: Special:Contributions/W.j.matthews editing Dewarw's articles only and whose first edit was on the Wilderspin deletion debate: he is similarly closely connected with Dewarw's edits: [7] and [8]. Yes, technically this may all be coincidence, but really, what are the chances? The evidence is there for all to see. Just go step-by-step through the edit history on the Wilderspin debate: These accusations are well founded. The reason I am focussing on spamming of the debate is because everyone else in the debate was in favour of deletion, apart from Dewarw and these IPs. This is why the page was deleted, and we have already had that discussion on AFD, plus I went over the main points again above. If the IPs and Dewarw are all the same person, then this review must be closed and the page deleted. If anyone reading agrees with my assessment and evidence above, it is clear that Dewarw's behaviour here has been unacceptable and goes against the principles on which this encyclopedia and community operates. Clavecin 11:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Firstly, this is not AfD, round two. The AfD, after SPAs were properly discounted (I'm not saying they had anything to do with the article's subject, I can't possibly know that, but whether they did or did not they should have been discounted) clearly reached consensus to delete. As for sources in the article, only the first one has any substance, and that one pretty much looks like human-interest type filler. The rest (including the long PDF) are just name-drops. There isn't sufficient sourcing for an article here. (However, I do advise Clavecin to watch the personal attacks. Misconduct by an editor, even if it does exist here, is never reason to delete an article anyway. At most it can be reason to invalidate an AfD and run it again.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Keep deleted/kill with stick, come on, clearly notable? This guy is basically a high school teacher cum local organist. This guy is no John Scott, or even John Bertalot, lord love him, a notorious self-promoter. He went on a choir tour and played at some big cathedrals - this is not a good assertion of notability. The sources are very local and the mentions not significant. Add to that that significant hunks of the article seem to be copyvio from at least one of the sources, it seems to be written by people with a strong connection to him, single purpose accounts, and I'd say it should also procedurally be a keep deleted. And killed. With a stick. Mak (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted He's a high school teacher who clearly - clearly! - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 11:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted on April 20 by Betacommand with the edit summary Deleting candidate for speedy deletion per CSD. This seemed odd to me because the article had been in existence since July (as confirmed by Image:Motherload game.JPG), and been of moderate length and detail. Established articles are usually not acceptable candidates for CSD, and it would seem more in process to prod or AfD the article. I asked Betacommand what CSD tag had been applied and why he chose to delete it, but he did not reply. Dar-Ape 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: this article was subsequently recreated and deleted several times: I suspect this is because people noticed it was missing, but the recreated versions did not establish notability as the original one did, and were thus speedily deleted. Dar-Ape 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw nomination in light of the opinions here expressed. Dar-Ape 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - Not sure where you get the idea that an article which has been around a while can't be a CSD, if it meets the criteria it meets the criteria. In this instance it was tagged as ((db-web)), i.e. CSD A7. Looking through the article I can't see any assertion of notability. Just a description of the game and information that I can obtain it as a download or as a CD through the mail. --pgk 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I had a look at several different versions of the article and in none of the ones I looked at could I find any trace of notability or reliable sources. It's not by accident that this was deleted 4 times by 3 different admins: it's a pretty clear A7/nn-web-content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Not a single assertion of notability in the article. Not sure where the idea for a "it's been around for a while so no CSD" clause comes from. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Speedy in 'candidate for speedy deletion' means 'without discussion', not 'right after the article is created'. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: I checked out multiple versions of the article and all are of the ilk "MotherLoad is a game" followed by "here is a collection of indiscriminate information about the game." It says what it is, but has nothing that asserts notability, so a valid A7. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul Foreign School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This 4th rank article as assessed by WikiProject Korea covered a fairly important content area. I do not understand why it was deleted (due to the fact that I was taking a short Wiki-Break) while similar articles such as Seoul International School or Korea International School were left untouched. Reason for deletion was: 'Does not assert notability, no independent source cited.' However I would like to point out that the rival schools, Seoul International School cites its yearbook, not a very verifiable source, while Korea International School has no sources at all. If this was the case, I truly apologize for taking such a long Wiki-Break. I should be able to give some sources, as necessitated by the proposal for deletion. Jason, (a message?) 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored it as a contested WP:PROD. It does need sourcing from reliable sources, the fact that other stuff exists in a similar poor state does not excuse it, this is a large project and perhaps no one has got around to fixing/deleting those yet. --pgk 15:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

was deleted at time we suspected spam so didn't change the text. Now I know you considered it blatant advertising, the text will be replaced but please unlock the page so reinstating it isn't prevented. the content will be written by someone else who didn't write the original and I will make sure it is certainly non-advetorial Seital 11:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Write it under userspace first, when your happy with it bring it back for review or ask an admin to do so and move it into place. --pgk 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You have a hill to climb here. It's been deleted eight times so far, every single version has been crap. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am worried that User:Seital seems to have a conflict of interest here. Corvus cornix 00:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria (edit | [[Talk:User:MariusM/Heaven of Transnistria|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|MfD)

Debate was wrongly closed as "delete", while no consensus existed and the majority of people who participated at the debate were against deletion (6 persons at last debate). This was the second nomination for deletion, the first was made by sockpuppeteer Mauco who cheated in the first debate (voted also through his sockpuppet Pernambuco who claimed to have "a neutral look"), however he was not succesfull in his attempt. After Mauco's sockpuppetry was discovered a person who participated at the first debate nominated it again for deletion, but he received no support and again the debate was closed without deletion. Then, the deletion nominator insisted for the relisting of the debate [9] explaining to the closing admin that this is "a sensible decision" for him and obtained the relisting of the debate. I wonder why a sandbox is so "sensible" for the deletion nominator, my guess is that this is part of a harrasment campaign against me linked with the arbitration case where I and the first deletion nominator sockpuppeteer Mauco are both involved and where the second deletion nominator is involved also through presenting "evidence" against me. Part of this harassment campaign against me is to label all those who share similar views with me as being my "political allies" (see the deletion nominator first comment) whose opinions are not worthy to be taken in consideration (in both debates the majority was against deletion however the result was "delete"). I mention also that I've used part of my sandbox in 4 different Wikipedia articles, I worked in the sandbox recently - in months April and May -, the claims that the sandbox is a copy of a deleted article are untrue, there were many sentences with their source which are usefull for my future edits in Wikipedia. Arguments for deletion are not based on Wikipedia policies, as even if some parts of my sandbox can be considered OR or don't follow NPOV (while this is debatable), those policies don't apply to userspaces. A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right for each wikipedian. Based on WP:USER, this sandbox was "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working" and it also contained some "opinions about Wikipedia". An other argument for deletion (brought by an other user involved in the arbitration case) was that the sandbox appear first in google searches for "transnistria propaganda" and "for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article". While this is only partially true (google.ro is not showing it in the first hits [10], in other languages it appear in the first hits [11], other search engines like altavista, yahoo, lycos, rambler, msn, are ignoring the sandbox), anyhow, this is not an argument based on Wikipedia policy to delete. Sandbox had also an userpage template, it doesn't look like an encyclopedic article. According to the deletion nominator I am a "single-purpose POV warrior and propagandist on Wikipedia" which should not be tolerated [12] but he already expressed this opinion at the above mentioned arbitration case and we should let the arbcom to decide if people like me will be tolerated in Wikipedia, not to claim an inexistent consensus against me (while the opposite is true, the majority was for keeping the sandbox). The closing admin is also a person with whom I had disputes, he is upset for the fact that I questioned his integrity before. I hope that in Wikipedia harassment campaigns will not be tolerated and all decisions will be taken based only on Wikipedia policy, in this case, mainly on WP:USER. MariusM 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user attempts to disrupt Wikipedia by turning it into a battlefieled and tries his best to tendenciously (and almost always longwindedly) push away uninvolved admins who try to keep the peace in the Transnitrian series of articles. It is, in part, the mode of discourse he has been acustomed to that there is an ongoing arbitration case. The user also seems to be under the mistaken impression that xfD is a vote, and looking below, it appears he isn't the only one (I try to correct him here and here). As for the page in question, it appears to be a simple replication of User:Dc76/Sandbox —which is at least structured like a workpage— with some recycled jokes and soapboxing commentary added in support (well, at least that appears to be the intent, although it's possible it's in opposition; I havne't looked close enough at it and I don't recall which side of Transnistrian dispute he's affiliated with, if at all — sorry, I've only been monitoring this dispute for a few weeks and am not entirely oriented as to all the actors, although MauriusM instantly & crudely labled me as being against his because I do not tolerate incivility and tendencious conduct which has the effect of perpetuating rather than diffusing a dispute). El_C 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, closing admin called this correctly: WP:SOAP. Wikipedia does not exist to host divisive and inflammatory personal content, and this was exactly that. It stood no chance of finding a place in the encyclopaedia, as a blatant POV fork. Please find another host for your soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn clearly no consensus. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reviewed the article and commend the closing admin for a bold and imho correct closure. Wikipedia is not a soapbox - there's plenty of free web hosts for this kind of thing. Endorse. --kingboyk 16:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP does not have full jurisdiction over userspace, as all userboxes can be seen as soapbox. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User page#What can I not have on my user page? applies, however. Corvus cornix 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid call on the basis of what was policy-based consensus. And WP:SOAP does have full jurisdiction, over elements in userspace that pose as articles, are allegedly meant to become articles, and previously were articles; as WP:USER very clearly states. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question was neither a page poses as an article, nor a preparation for an article. It's a userpage essay. Essays are all soapboxes, and are allowed under WP:ESSAY, so WP:SOAP is excluded from jurisdiction over essays. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plain wrong. The user did claim he meant this to be a sandbox for a future article. And Userspace "Essays" are for essays about Wikipedia. WP:USER explicitly states you can't have political soapboxing essays on non-Wikipedia-related issues. Read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the purported "sandbox for future article" claim. Where is it? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had ((Workpage)) on top of it, and Marius kept calling it his "sandbox" and arguing about its value as material for incorporation in articles, in about a dozen places during the two weeks of debates here. In fact, he's saying that in his very nomination statement just above. Did you read it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it has a Workpage template on top. One of the arguments for deletion used in the debate was that "for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia it may look as an encyclopaedic article". The workpage template is exactly to answer this particular concern, making this argument for deletion invalid. To be mentioned that the template was already added when this particular concern was raised, I don't understand why was raised this concern, I know only that the person who raised it is also involved in the arbitration case.--MariusM 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? Try MauriusM's opening statement on the MfD. A sandbox in own userpage where he can work not disturbed by others is a right ... [etc.] Hope that helps, Wooyi. El_C 18:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry for being over-questioning, then I think the page may violate WP:USER. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and sorry for sounding curt on my side. I suppose it's just because this has been drawn out so ridiculously long, for such a trivial issue... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Deletion of userspace copies of deleted material that is not significantly being worked on is uncontroversial. I've done it myself recently under WP:CSD#G6. Reviewing the version deleted from article space in September and the recent user space versions, there has not been any significant work done in 8 months. As pointed out in the MfD this falls afoul of WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, which is a policy based reason for deletion. GRBerry 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The sandbox is not 8 months old, check its history. We are not talking about 8 months of activity, but only about 2 months after the first debate. I explained why I didn't work so much at the sandbox, but in fact I had many edits on it in April and May. Unfortunately, the history of the sandbox is not visible anymore (at least for me, I don't know if admins can see it).--MariusM 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male bikini-wearing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 12#Men in skirts, this issue should be discussed too. It is clearly a notable thing, especially in the LGBT and gay communities (especially in the United Kingdom, Europe, North America and Australia). There are new sources that prove its notability. Kudos to Bards for discussing Men in skirts yesterday. This subject should be undeleted in its entirety for people to see. Previous discussion has been quelled as "trolling", but this isn't: it's a genuine attempt at discussion. DenmarkEuroB11 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The nomination and the "delete" votes were based on a faulty premise and the closing admin should have disregarded those !votes which misunderstood the nomination. The objection to the article was largely that the content of the allegations were "tabloid fodder." However, the content of the allegations is not a question that should be considered. The question that should be considered is whether there are reliable sources for the fact that the allegations were made, and there are. That people don't like the sources or the allegations is irrelevant to the sources themselves, and the sources that attest to the fact that the allegations were made are solid. WP:BLP concerns are irrelevant. The article was not asserting the truth of the allegations, simply the existence of them. That the allegations were made is undeniable and well sourced. The deletionists want the information purged completely from Wikipedia, including from Clay Aiken's article, because they find the allegations unsavory. I agree that the allegations are unsavory. That doesn't make them unfit for Wikipedia. The article passed every relevant policy and guideline and no reasonable deletion criterion was advanced. The admin should have discounted the invalid deletion rationales and kept the article. Otto4711 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The opinion that the sources are bad is certainly relevant to deletion, especially since BLP mandates removal of material which is poorly sourced. Allegations from unreliable sources can and should be deleted. -Amarkov moo! 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that if the article were asserting the truth of the allegations then the existing sourcing would be inadequate. But again, the truth of the allegations is not what is in question here. The existence of the allegations is. A recording of Paulus making the allegations exists (episode 3), so how can the existence of the allegations be in question? If the article had said, based on the existing sources, "Paulus had sex with Aiken" then I'd be the first guy there calling for its removal. The article is saying "Paulus claimed to have sex with Aiken" and as verification of the fact that Paulus made the claim, the sources are solid. Otto4711 06:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not the way Wikipedia works - we are not a scandal sheet for living people, and we do not serve as a sounding board and amplifier for sleazy and salacious rumors or allegations not otherwise reported on or supported by other evidence. FCYTravis 07:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia is not supposed to make value judgments about what is reported. Wanting an article deleted because its topic is "sleazy" or "salacious" is censorship and Wikipedia is not censored for good taste. Or at least it's not supposed to be. Otto4711 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - There is nothing to suggest that this is not simply another scandalous assertion made by some nobody looking to attach himself to someone famous. The sources are dubious in the extreme, and the matter is beyond trivial (whether or not Clay Aiken had sex with this guy is of absolutely no consequence to history.) Absent some evidence that this person isn't making it all up to get 15 minutes of fame in the tabloids, this has no place in an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 07:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion I can't retrieve many of the original sources, but the NY Times one frequently refers to the National Enquirer as a source and uses the term "Alleged". I notice for the others they have been referred to as "Gossip Columns". Questions of reliability seem legitimate so closed properly. Also note WP:BLP "When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?" - hence the gossip columns and words like "Alleged". --pgk 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in--not the NY Times, the NY Post. -Jmh123 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have no understanding of standard journalistic practices. News outlets use the word "alleged" when talking about pretty much anything relating to living people that isn't legally fact. People on trial are "alleged" criminals prior to conviction, and so on. As for the reliability of the Enquirer as a source, it certainly seemed reliable enough to get Gary Hart out of the presidential race when it ran the Monkey Business photo, when it broke the story of Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child, its reportage of OJ Simpson's spousal abuse or of Rush Limbaugh's drug usage, and the Star was certainly reliable enough when it broke the Gennifer Flowers story and the Dick Morris story. Otto4711 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for telling me about my lack of knowledge. Being common practice makes it no less weasly, and in this case the whole thing is just that we're not willing to commit ourselves on this, it is gossip. Again WP:BLP we aren't a rumour mill or gossip column. --pgk 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Always glad to help dispel the ignorance of my fellow man, even when it obviously doesn't take the first time. The idea that the word "alleged" in a journalistic context is a "weasel word" is absurd and would come as news to every professor of journalism and journalistic ethics in the country. And one more time, we are not talking about an article discussing the truth of the allegations but the existence of them. What the problem is with taking that step back is I have no idea because it really doesn;t seem to be that complicated. It is uncontrovertable that the allegations exist and were reported on in reliable sources and all this turning up of one's nose at the notion of reporting on the existence of the allegations in the face of the amount of gossip that gets bandied about the articles here reeks of WP:BIAS. And for all the pointing at WP:BLP I have to wonder if those pointing to it have actually read it, as it says in relevant part If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Otto4711 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But these allegations aren't documented by reliable sources; you're making a bunch of arguments as to why it doesn't matter that there are no reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have yet to see something that indicates that a source which prints 100% accurate information is not a reliable source for that information. Otto4711 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a sarcastic response, not genuine thanks. I'm perfectly aware of journalistic practice, you seem to be confused between a word such as alleged being able to be used legitimately in some contexts and illegitimately (i.e. as a weasel word) in others, it isn't a one size fits all situation. This was a gossip column, the use of the word alleged was clearly a weasel term meaning we have absolutely zero confirmation only the story from a down market tabloid. If you can't see the difference between reporting on someone currently being charged with murder as an alleged murderer and that, then I give up now. Consider other situations of the word, a reporter for a reputable magazine does an interview with someone at which point an allegation comes out, the may report that as alleged as in they have a reasonable background to the allegation, here the source is not an interview it is a unreliable source, this is not a reliable source for wikipedia's purposes, as pointed out numerous times now this was written in "gossip columns", WP:BLP is quite clear on the standard of reliability, gossip doesn't cut it. --pgk 06:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please copy and paste the exact portion of WP:BLP or any other policy that says that gossip columns categorically can't be reliable sources. "Paulus alleged that he had sex with Aiken." That's an acceptable non-weasel use of the word "alleged" under any non-insane standard. How exactly would you suggest that a reporter report on an allegation without using the word "alleged"? And no, I don't see the completely phony distinction you're trying to draw between a report in a so-called "low-end gossip column" and a report elsewhere in the paper. What you're suggesting is that if the New York Times had a story on the front page and one on the gossip page both calling someone an alleged murderer the story on the front page is reliable and the story on the gossip page isn't. That's stupid. Sorry if that's uncivil or whatever, but that's just rock-freakin'-stupid. And I've already posted a link to an interview in which Paulus goes into great and specific detail about his allegations. If your standard is that the allegations have to be in the form of an interview, there they are. Otto4711 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The arguments of the delete votes ignored our guidelines. Being written about in the New York Post, People Magazine, MSNBC and the New York Daily News demonstrates notablity, whether it's "tabloid" news or not. If they're written about by very highly circulated publications, they're notable. The nature of their notabilty, like this person gleaming for attention with slanderous allagations, doesn't suddenly eraticate the media coverage this person has recieved. --Oakshade 07:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As the closer of the AfD, I believe that the discussion was closed per consensus and was not based on faulty premise and thus was an adequate close. The reports and rumors are all allegations, in which nothing can be proved from. Sr13 09:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, the truth of the allegations is not in question because the article did not assert the truth of them. The article discussed the existence of them. The question is not "are the allegations true." The question is "were the allegations made and are there reliable sources to that effect." The answer to that question is yes and any AFD nomination or !vote made on the basis of whether the allegations are true should be discounted. Otto4711 12:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Valid AfD with overwhelming consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per FCYTravis. AFD was completely valid and closed properly. --Coredesat 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE_REASON

The page was deleted because of a personal attack by your editors/users. The site has been on wikipedia for an extemely long time and only now is being deleted because:

How does a page go from being in wikipedia for years, to being speedy delete Is that really how wikipedia is run?

• Comment - I have removed personal attacks from this deletion review request. I have no opinion on the issue in question. FCYTravis 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infoboxneeded (edit | [[Talk:Template:Infoboxneeded|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't know if this template is a good idea for articles - I can see both sides of the argument - but I don't see the issue with putting it on talk pages. Even if Cyde knows it's irreparably bad, he shouldn't delete it; he should take it to templates for deletion. NE2 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Obviously an improper deletion that has now caused a broken template link on over 500 articles at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: the very assumption of the template is wrong. We don't need infoboxes. Danny 03:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So rename it. *shrug* Besides, that's simply your opinion, it certainly isn't the consensus of the project, not that a discussion has been had on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn this sort of deletion causes massive broken template links and makes a havoc, thus should not be done summarily. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn no reason this couldn't have gone to TFD... longstanding template that clearly didn't fall under any CSD. I disagreed with it being added to articles too (as opposed to talkpages, which was where it used to go) but that's not a reason to delete it. --W.marsh 03:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I speedily restored this, as it's used in literally thousands of pages. Now at TfD. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Baseball Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A quick glance at Google News suggests that enough reliable sources ([13] [14] [15]) exist to establish this future television channel's encyclopedicity. The project has been in gestation/vaporware forever, which I think only adds to the encyclopedic interest - is this the Duke Nukem Forever of TV channels? FCYTravis 02:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Was at The Baseball Channel until today, in fact. Should have never remained deleted anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn The AfD should have been continued, as the discussion there was being outdated by events. DGG 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted The sources only mention that carriage of such a channel is a stipulation of the current MLB Extra Innings deal. There has been no official announcement about the launch of such a network, or any management for it. One of the cited items was from 2004, about a previous plan for an MLB network which was shelved when MLB and Fox attempted to launch a sports network [16]. Those plans were abandoned when the two failed to get the NFL cable package that went to NFL Network. Only when there's more info about the network, that does not have to do with Extra Innings should an article be created. Milchama 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That no "official announcement exists" is not reason to ignore the reliable sources which discuss the potential network and the fact that it has been discussed and abandoned at least once before. As I noted, its long "vaporware" status arguably makes it more encyclopedic. FCYTravis 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn since it seems clear there are sufficient sourcesDGG 20:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was on AfD. The discussion was closed early by User:Daniel.Bryant. After discussion on his talk page here, he reversed himself, saying "I have overturned my closure and relisted on the basis of substantial new information and arguments. Fellow administrators, please let this run at least another five days from today (see my sig for date) before closing, to let the debate which was shut down too early by myself complete itself, before making a decision." However, User:Drini nevertheless closed only a few hours later, with the edit summery "don't be a dick". I was on the point of adding a comment to the AfD when Drini closed, and I asked him twice on his talk page to reverse himself. he refuesed, explicitly citing WP:IAR as his justification. (See this exchange) As I was composing a post to Deletion Reveiw, User:Matt Crypto reverted Drini's close. Perhaps I should have brought the matter here at once. Insted I added my comment to the re-opened AfD, as did several other editors. Then Daniel Bryant, objecting quite reasonably to Matt Crypto's revert, reveted to Drini's close, thus removing my comments and those of four other editors, made in good faith. He also altered his own earlier request to let the AfD run, significantly reducing its strength to a "suggestion" and removing the mention of the full five days. There are several process problems here, IMO. There was no consensus to delete at the time of Drini's close (and not a clear one at the time of the earlier undone clsoe), but he closed it as a delete. Matt Crypto should not have simply reverted Drini's close (although if IAR aupports one out-of-process action, perhaps it supports a revert of it). Daniel Bryant in undoing Matt Crypto's action, should not have reveerted the commetns of five other editors. Drini's close was based on his judgement of the notability issues, but it was not supported by a consensus, and early closes (particularly when undoing a prior decison to relist) should have a clear consensus, IMO. Some editors had raised WP:BLP issues, but argumets i find persuasive said that these do not apply: the informatiuon is well sourced, is not particularly negative or controversial, and the Qian Zhijun himself has created a website on which he publicizes the facts involved, so he must not find them overly embarrasing or harmful. I request that the early closes be Overturned, and that the articel be Relisted, with all prior commets included, and that we all be more wary of a rush to judgemetn in future. DES ^(talk) 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted the process is a mess - so let's stick to the 'facts': this is a WP:BLP article about a fat teenager who was made fun of on the internet, and got his unfortunate 15 min of fame in some newspapers that were used to wrap chips the next day. We don't need this. Whilst it might merit a mention on Sick things people have done on the internet, the child victim certainly does not merit a perpetual wikipedia biography. Let's not be dicks.--Doc^g 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't belive that is an accurate assessment of the situation. We usually consider continuing coverage in major newspapers worthy of note. I made that argument more fully in My AfD comment, which is the place for it. I am asking here that a proper discussion of you views and those who hold quite different views be allowed to complete on AfD. Note that at the time Drini closed, i count 6 dels and 5 keeps, with significant argumetns each way -- hardly consensus to delete. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not worth debating - and certainly not vote counting over. Get a grip. We are better than this.--Doc^g 01:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh for heaven's sake what a ridiculous reason for coming to deletion review. It's bollocks and it must die. Fuck process before it fucks this kid's life even worse than it has been already. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If he felt that his life was "fucked" by this, he would not be acting as he is -- continuing to publicize the matter himself. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That he participates in his own degradation does not excuse us from our obligations to him as a human being. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument doesn't make sense. In building an encyclopedia, we should not pick and choose which topics to cover based on whether we feel sorry for them or not. Under this argument, we should not cover unfortunate details of anyone's life. The only obligation we really have to him as a human being is to cover the topic neutrally and from secondary sources. Mangojuice^talk 11:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. Drini's close (and that of Daniel.Bryant before) is entirely valid and should never have been overruled. Daniel.Bryant was right to restore it and to remove comments made after a valid close. The weight of WP:BLP concerns and our basic responsibility to act responsibly in providing encyclopedic content clearly trump the weak appeal to WP:NOT#CENSORED made in the discussion. We do not keep negative pages about people of borderline notability. The closer's reading of the debate was in my opinion correct. WjBscribe 01:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I commented on the original AfD I was asked to come here. My response will be the same as it always is, then; what I have to say in the original AfD stands as is, and everyone commenting on the DRV or determining the correct outcome should be reading the AfD anyway. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure -There is no evidence that this person's life has any lasting encyclopedicity, and Wikipedia should not be in the business of recording for posterity anyone who ever had their picture photoshopped. Whether or not the fact that his picture was photoshopped is encyclopedic, the person himself most certainly is not. FCYTravis 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC) - I'm reconsidering this one, mainly because of the evidence that he's become a willing participant in his own fame by starting a Web site for it, etc. FCYTravis 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not "recording for posterity anyone who ever had their picture photoshopped"; only the ones who've had extensive media coverage in The Times, China Daily, and the BBC, and who therefore meet our notability requirements. --DeLarge 11:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Drini's close is a terrible reading of the debate (if you can even call it that - I believe he's simply advancing a completely new argument in the closure) and there was not consensus. Furthermore, the BLP concerns are bollocks here - there is nothing negative in the article that I can find, and even if there was, everything in there is backed up in reliable sources. I'd rather there weren't a bunch of admin reversions in this, but Drini's closure effectively took the result completely out of the hands of the community, and given that (1) there is no complaint here from the subject, (2) I would think we might have learned our lesson after Daniel Brandt, and (3) the argument on which this is deleted is not supported even in the BLP policy. Relist because in a BLP case consensus ought to be found, not given up on. But, if anything, the keep arguments were stronger here. Mangojuice^talk 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I am now informed that the inital closure was not early, and I have struck that word above. I was misled by the words "premature" and "too early" which was used in the relisting comment. Instead it was reopened for "new information" DES ^(talk) 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn, and don't relist. When you have multiple reliable sources referring to him as one of the most famous faces in China, it's a done deal. Period. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close it was a mess, and I !voted keep there. But now in light of the BLP concerns it is appropriate to put it under Intermet meme article instead a biography. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• R.I.P. - seems like the AfD and the DRV here turned into a huge mess (which I have no intention to delve into) and, from the procedural point of view, the whole process should be scrapped and restarted. BUT, quite surprisingly, the AfD ended in a correct decision to delete an article on a person of borderline notability, and I believe the AfD was started as a part of more major action of pruning Wikipedia from awful articles like that. In the end, WP:UCS (which is a part of one of the most important WP policies) should be applied when all else fails, and common sense tells us this article is even less encyclopedic, needed or having any serious point than one on a Pokemon. I hereby declare I am willing to endorse deletion of this article in any further AfDs or DRVs, if this one will not be successful, no matter how many it will take to get rid of it. With Wikipedia growing in quantity and not quality every day, pruning it of weed is one of the most important tasks not to let this wonderful work of so many people deteriorate into irrelevance. PrinceGloria 02:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this remotely borderline? Seriously, I can't see how one can look at the sources and call it borderline. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I can't see how one can look at the number of actual articles that link to it and not consider it redundant. PrinceGloria 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see why that's relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is relevant in that it shows the article is irrelevant - I mean, without any proper Wikilinks TO it, the article is unlikely to be ever accessed. This article solely exists by the merit that there are some sources for it, but it doesn't mean that we should keep it - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just a collection of all info one can find. This is an article on a guy whose face was featured in an Internet meme, itself a phenomenon of questionable notability, it would be like having lenghty bios of people whose photos were taken from the stock to adorn some billboards (that said, I am almost sure some of those linger somewhere on WP, sadly). I doubt it anybody would be really searching for this guy on Wikipedia, and if somebody was really really really that interested, they can do the same google search people did to cobble together the sources for the article. We've had repeated requests for Infiniti G20 paint codes here (and I am being dead serious here), and still we don't provide them. Why should we carry an article nobody asked for? PrinceGloria 11:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If someone created it, it's apparent someone is asking for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn - 1. The AfD was closed improperly - it should've been keep by the consensus (I see even a delete vote was just a vote) with well supported arguments and the closing admin cited their own arbitrary AfD reasoning of "internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not" to close it rather than being an independent un-biased judge of the AfD consensus. 2. Clearly multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources primarily about the topic. --Oakshade 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Viewing in procedural terms, there is no convinceing argument that the article should be deleted. Bad taste is not an argument. Until I read the pruning policy, I'll work to improve wiki by improving it. DDB 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for starters, obviously, and relisting is probably the best procedural call. Endorsing deletion when the process has been so contentious seems like incredibly poor judgement, while overturning and not relisting would undoubtedly upset those who support deletion (although God knows I can't see a policy which remotely supports them). My more expansive comments at User talk:Daniel.Bryant#Deletion of Qian Zhijun are to do with content, not process. I'd also support the comments of User:Mangojuice, who seems to be one of the few people here actually citing WP:BLP accurately; even for private figures (I reckon Qian Zhijun is semi-public thanks to his subsequent participation in perpetuating his own infamy) the recommendation is to "include only material relevant to their notability...When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." That's "pare back", not "delete entirely". Since the content met WP:ATT and WP:NPOV as well as WP:BIO, I really don't see the problem here. Don't think internet phenomena are encyclopedic? Then get a policy which supports you on that, don't misuse existing ones which say no such thing. --DeLarge 09:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addended comment regarding User:Drini's first reason for deletion: "the internet phenomenon is notable, the kid not". In fact, the original article was entitled "Little Fatty" after the phenomenon's more common name. However, user:Matt Crypto redirected it to Qian Zhijun, which I viewed as correct since "Little Fatty" was more likely to be a BLP violation despite WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. --DeLarge 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, valid closure by both Daniel Bryant and Drini (and the fact that Daniel was having second thoughts but then supported Drini's decision only supports this). Correct decision, as per PrinceGloria, Kat Walsh and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, just let it die at this point. The whole thing has been mismanaged, just let it go and, if people really feel that it is such a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, maybe somebody can try again in a few months, in a more sensitive manner. Bahamut0013 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't come back in a few months because recreation of deleted material is a criteria for speedy deletion. An alternative might be to ask why you can't "let it die" and come back in a few months to see if it's become any less notable? Multiple AfDs are, by contrast, quite routine. --DeLarge 11:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Because it is established policy that we err on the side of caution when dealing with biographies of living persons. Simple as that. FCYTravis 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's entirely cautious to write from the sources, which had been done. BLP is not designed to whack articles like this, and the use of it as a tool to remove information like this is exactly the kind of slippery slope many of us predicted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted - I can only echo the sentiments of Kat, Tony, Doc Glasgow and PrinceGloria. -- Nick ^t 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleted as above. I agree with the close. Eusebeus 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and Keep Deleted. Seems a reasonable closure per the above. As an aside, if the kid does become a target for the Chinese authorities in the future, I'm sure it can be mentioned in a relevant article; in the meantime this article is merely trivia. --kingboyk 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, strongly. We've matured a great deal since the bad old days when wikipedia was dumping ground for every random forum meme and teh-funny-lol photoshop picture. Valid AfD, valid close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we can call this maturity. Have you actually read the sources? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I do not appreciate closings out of process. I do not see this as a BLP issue, since the subject of the article has appeared in publicity events to capitalize on it. It is not a "15 minutes of fame" issue, since it has lasted FOUR YEARS! There is sufficient independent substantial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:A. Edison 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Fuck process. This will die. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason to kill it - it meets every reasonable standard we have. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Embrace process. But what is much more improtant in this case, embrace a well-sourced articel that is supported by all relevant policies, and contravenes none. This should live. DES ^(talk) 13:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Deletion - The subject passes the notability test, and as long as there's sources to back it up, then this article should exist. I realize that "because X exists, so should Y" is generally not a stong argument, but if the Star Wars kid is noteworthy enough for inclusion, then so is the fatty IMO. Tarc 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Well-written and well-sourced article about a notable subject. The keep arguments were far more convincing and the closure by Drini was more like another opinion than a reading of the discussion. Prolog 19:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Daniel Bryant reversed himself, which was legitimate. He did it within 1.5 hours, so relisting the existing debate was not a significant procedural error that we need concern ourselves with. However, Drini's close is not an attempt to reflect the consensus of the discussion, it is a new argument. He should have made that argument and not closed the debate. As such, I find that close invalid. With no valid close, this needs to be overturned. Additionally, the number of keep comments the discussion received after Drini's invalid close are evidence that there was not any consensus for deletion. This absolutely needs to be overturned, my only question is whether to relist or just plain overturn. I think relisting is better, but since I find none of the delete arguments persuasive, I wouldn't object to a straight overturn. GRBerry 19:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. There was no consensus for delete in the debate, it seems that the closing admin ignored all rules and considered his personal opinions as the opinion of the Wikipedia comunity.--MariusM 07:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I'm getting the sense here that something about the article got under people's skin, and even though it's sourced and fully compliant with our policies, people who just didn't like it were very insistent like Tony Sidaway up there that "this must die," quality sourcing and embrace of the publicity by the kid himself be damned. If Brian Peppers put up a website of his own and embraced the internet publicity by interviewing for newspapers, would we still have to worry about if we're giving him undesired publicity? There's nothing wrong with covering internet phenomena, even ones that show people in a negative light. We just featured Bus Uncle on the main page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If Brian Peppers put up a website of his own and embraced the internet publicity by interviewing for newspapers, would we still have to worry about if we're giving him undesired publicity? - Yes - we're not an advertising site for media whores. -- Nick ^t 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Cough cough.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See also Category:Big Brother contestants and Category:American Idol participants. I thought the whole point of WP:NOTE (or WP:IDONTLIKEIT for that matter) was to prevent arbitrary and subjective definitions of what constituted encyclopedic subject matter. --DeLarge 11:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill it dead - are we an encyclopedia or are we fark.com? If we're fark.com, then by all means, let's have threads articles on the meme of the day. --BigDT 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • this isn't afd. The question is whether the deletion was legitimate, not if you like the article or not. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]