Template:HistSource (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

Improper speedy deletion Request for a relist. A deletion review was cut short on here. I'm asking for a relisting as the admin who closed the debate had previously voted for deletion, and the template was a genuine attempt to meet the previous complaints that it was giving one source an "official" status. JASpencer 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Troubled It does look like a good faith attempt to overcome the objections leading to the prior deletion. It has verbage about being out of date or biased. And it was my suggestion in the last deletion review to have a multi-source version of the template. Since it was my suggestion, I note that I'm troubled but refrain from opining further. GRBerry 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore listing. Florence of Worcester and the hordes of similar articles are unlikely to get fixed if JASpencer's template is unleashed into the wild. The few that have been are likely to be unfixed by CE/EB-wielding well-intentioned, but clueless, editors. I have no objection to the debate being re-opened from where it was. The template was, and always will be, WP:BEANS. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The template wasn't discussed with anyone who had raised concerns about it, and appeared to again be nothing but an end-run around previous consensus. Radiant called the closure correctly. — coelacan talk — 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there should not have been a proper chance for debate? The template was an attempt to answer criticisms which were made. It's a pity that debate was ended early. JASpencer 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The previous consensus was in large part motivated by the percieved weight being given to an official source, which is arguably not the case here. And either way, the template was created before the other was listed for TfD. How could it have been intended as an end run around a consensus which did not exist? -Amark moo! 04:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As User:Mark Dingemanse already told you, "Actually, it was created the day the second deletion discussion began, when the first AfD closure was overturned at DRV. So it can very well be a repost."[1] — coelacan talk — 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely forgot about that DRV. Regardless, it could be a repost... or it could be an effort to address the concerns. I believe the latter, in which case speedy deleting it is bad. -Amark moo! 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((HistSource)) appears to primarily be a mechanism for putting a talk page into Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has all the same old problems and needs to go up for CFD soon, itself. There was some attempt to discuss the usage of this category at Wikipedia talk:Catholic Encyclopedia topics#Proposed Policy Redux but JASpencer does not appear to be taking anyone's concerns into consideration there. So I can't call this template an effort to address anyone's concerns, either, it doesn't seem to be born out of any desire to do so. — coelacan talk — 05:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, it is different. And since so many of the delete opinions before were because we were giving undue weight to one particular encyclopedia, it deserves a full discussion at least. -Amark moo! 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was the primary mover of the "undue weight and official appearance" argument. Others assented, but also offered what was by far the most widely-shared sentiment: Wikipedia doesn't need to encourage these old sources. Go back over the AFDs, you'll find me arguing "too official looking" and most other deleters focusing on the "historical sources are unneeded" argument, and even talking about how they would argue the same thing against a hypothetical 1911 Brittanica template, as Folantin did in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 18#Template:Catholic-link. If the primary argument against these templates has been that the old sources in general are not to be encouraged, then my argument of official appearance shouldn't be given so much weight as to overturn this deletion. And indeed since I'm the primary arguer on the undue-officiality argument, and I'm !voting "Endorse", then arguing on the weight of that line of argument is pretty much moot at this time. — coelacan talk — 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the template is not intrinsically used for an old source. It could just as easily be used for a contemporary source. That it wasn't is not grounds for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "HistSource" is short for "Historical Sources". We know what this template is for. — coelacan talk — 08:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure per Coelacan. Nothing new to discuss that I can see. The creator of the template has failed to address the fundamental problem of the reliability of obsolete and often POV sources. The creator himself has been misled by out-of-date information in the 1913 CE [2]. We should not be recommending such sources to complete strangers. Our aim is to improve Wikipedia, not expand it with erroneous information. --Folantin 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "fundamental problem" changes time and again here. It was that it was on the talk page, then it is biased towards one source, now it's encouraging sources that may be insufficiently presentist. The fact is that this was an honest attempt to answer the criticisms. The criticisms that were a minority are now presented as if they were overwhelming. This was an improper use of speedy deletion.JASpencer 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always said the fundamental problem was the reliability of seriously out-of-date sources. There are other issues but this one is quite enough by itself to make this template deeply inadvisable. You still haven't addressed this basic issue. The diff. I gave shows what happens when you rely on such sources. This has nothing to do with "presentism" or other such strawman nonsense; it's all about providing the best information available and making this encyclopaedia as accurate as possible.--Folantin 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue is that you think it should be closed. Fine. However I wasn't given time to respond when it was (in my opinion wrongly) speedily deleted, and that is why I'm asking for a relisting. JASpencer 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if we relist it you'll still have to address the problem of WP:RS and there has never been any indication that you will be able to do this. --Folantin 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were allowed to try.... JASpencer 11:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. What's stopping you? These debates have been going on for about a month now. Surely you must have come up with an argument by now. --Folantin 11:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make is that this is not about whether or not the article should be deleted but whether it should be speedy deleted, especially speedy deleted before I got a chance to say anything on this by an editor who had voted to delete before. All I'm asking for is a relisting. And rudeness does not help. Thanks. JASpencer 11:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most !voters here agree the deletion was not out of process. We have not seen your willingness to discuss others' concerns, which you dismissed repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:Catholic Encyclopedia topics#Proposed Policy Redux. On that, we have no reason to assume you will act otherwise in AFD. Your opportunity is now. As Folantin said, what's stopping you? — coelacan talk — 20:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. I realize this was an attempt to address the earlier complaints, but I believe it failed at that. >Radiant< 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe that it failed, but as someone who voted for deletion you may not have been in an adequate position to judge whether or not this was a straightforward copy (which you seem to be saying above that it was not). JASpencer 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. HistSource was a more generic version of Catholic-link (TfD here), with slightly different wording and options, but in its character and intention, functionally the same thing. Does it matter if we use HistSource or Catholic-link? They achieve the same end, and for all the reasons noted in the Catholic-link debate, it goes against consensus (for example see comments by coelacan, WJBscribe, Robert A West in Catholic-link TfD). -- Stbalbach 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concensus was to delete the article, it was not a concensus on policy. But that aside the issue is not about what opinions are - but whether it should have been speedy deleted. JASpencer 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said "policy"? Not me. See rule about re-creating templates that do the same thing as deleted templates. The reasons for deleting Catholic-expand were not fixed in the new HistSource, all the same reasons for deleting Catholic-expand extend to HistSource. Thus the speedy. -- Stbalbach 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same. Your original comment on this objected to (1) the fact that it was Catholic, (2) the fact that it was 100 years old (3) that it was exclusively using other sources. This was an honest attempt to directly meet objection (3). I attempted to soften the other two objections by placing on a talk page and adding cautionary text. I may not agree with you that a late twentieth century secularist bias is a good thing, but I have no wish to embed any other systemic bias. JASpencer 10:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) the fact that it was Catholic. Either you mis-understood what I said, or I did not write what I said clearly - take it for fact right here and now, JASpencer, that Catholic sources can be used on Wikipedia and I have no bias against Catholicism. Your continued accusations of anti-Catholicism is wrong and distasteful. If it was a mistaken interpretation at first, then fine, you now have it clarified. It has been a persistent line of attack by you for weeks now, and I've asked you a number of times to back off, I consider it a personal attack. -- Stbalbach 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse This does amount to substantial recreation of deleted material--examining the original AfD, is was clear that almost a unanimous opinion wa that such a template was improper, not just the specific wording, but the entire concept.DGG 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again this is a policy decision. This had been a prior attempt to meet criticisms. It was deleted by an admin who had voted delete in a linked discussion so could not be said to be disinterested. JASpencer 09:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - recreation of deleted material, avoidance of consensus is little better than avoiding it altogether. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did it need to be done without debate by an interested admin? JASpencer 11:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is wikilawyering. Spirit of the law over the letter, please. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the whole point. The spirit of the law is certainly not that an interested admin stops debate before the creator of the template explains him or her self. I'm also not saying that this was malicious, just a mistake. I'm just asking for a relisting based on the admin (accidentally) not following the spirit of the law. JASpencer 12:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. The spirit of the law is that we should not have this template: beside that, it's irrelevant who deletes it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought that you were supposed to discuss. It was not intended as a straight copy (as Radiant has admitted) and so should have had a discussion. JASpencer 12:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the question of how much time editors should have to waste on this and related discussions when there's already clear consensus on the matter and an objection based on a fundamental Wiki-policy (WP:RS) has never been met. --Folantin 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the end justify the means? As far as WP:RS goes there are other places to discuss this, like the talk page of the policy which says "In articles on religions and religious practices, religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion) are considered reliable sources for the religion's practices and beliefs, and traditional religious and academic views of religious practices should generally both be cited and attributed as such when they differ." This covers the CE in areas of Catholic religious practice (although probably not in Renaissance art). JASpencer 12:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or anthropology, medieval historiography, psychology, Western Classical music, Armenian history or one of the many other subjects to which you attached this template/category. "Religious scholars (recognized authorities on the religion)" So the scholarship of the 1913 CE is still widely recognised? Isn't there a New Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance? --Folantin 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD|DRV April 06|DRV June 06|DRV Jan 07)

I see it's been almost a year since the original debate and GA has certainly matured since then. There is still the issue of self-reference but such things are for a discussion to decide. Noclip 20:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. It was deleted to stop the proliferation of meta-date templates in teh article namespace (which is why even today the FA template is controversial). Keep deleted. Raul654 20:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case it has failed miserably. How many different article meta-data templates do we have now? Several hundreds? And how many articles are suffering from them? Soon half a million? If I click the random button I feel almost surprised if I don't see the artcle begin with some box shouting irrelevant things about this article. At least the GA-icon is less obtrusive than all those big "this article"-tags we throw around with no regret and without any care for the millions of readers we distract and confuse. "What the hell does 'Wikifying' mean?", I bet they ask, "do I need to know that to read about this disease I wanted to learn about"? But, yes, one meta-template less in article space is better than 1 more. So Keep deleted. But I wish we could have a hundred meta-templates less. We're drowning in them. Move them to talk, almost all of them, I say. Shanes 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I didn't realize this is now the 4th deletion review of this template. Speedy close. Raul654 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally hold no opinion on the matter, but perhaps having a comprehensive discussion once would help settle the issue and avoid the need for a 5th and a 6th? Not being intimately familiar with the whole story (only what I've seen at TT:GA and TFD/GA) I have no idea if this is realistic. Noclip 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The most recent discussion here was at the 20 January log, where it was speedily closed. Perhaps a full hearing on this one might be beneficial to put this to bed? For the record, I'm in favor of undeletion and I don't consider the FA template to be a problem, but it has been a year since the initial TfD, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse salting and deletion, speedy close Just as deletion of policy and process pages is not the way to change them, neither is undeletion. Go find a wide consensus for having such things, and then recreation will be easy. (As Amarkov said last time, that consensus should not consist of the regulars at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, WP:CENT would be better. But no compelling reason for overturning the multiple prior discussions has been offered. And the pace at which opposition appeared last time was adequate evidence that there is strong disagreement with this idea. GRBerry 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agent M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Member of Tsunami Bomb -- a notable band.

Restoration of this page should also include the Emily Whitehurst page -- Agent M's actual name -- which was a redirect. Phil 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Article wasn't all that great, but the assertion is there, so it wasn't a valid A7. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted article reads like a homepage. "Favourite bands include Green Day and The Smiths, Emily says her dream duet would be with Billie Joe Armstrong." Give me a fuckin break. The band she was in barely scrapes past WP:MUSIC, only 2 other members of the band have bios (and one of them is a 1 liner that shouldnt exist). She fails CSD:A7 quite clearly. Not to mention she fails WP:NOT.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How broad is your criteria? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A need for improvement of the article oughtn't be cause for speedy deletion. That way, it *never* gets improved -- that's the point of AfD. Additionally, I fail to see the relevance in other members of the band having bios and your assessment of barely scraping past WP:MUSIC. Phil 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD History shows that another admin had declined A7 speedy deletion because the article has an assertion of notability. It is therefore clearly a case of disagreement, and we should let AFD sort that out. I also agree both that the article needs cleanup badly and has an assertion of notability, given the low standards in WP:MUSIC for notability. GRBerry 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I declined to A7 it in October. It wasn't a good article, but it did make a reasonable claim of notability, and I'd rather not see creeping expansion of A7. If this was AfD, and noting that the article has not improved since October, I would say to keep the history but make it a redirect to the band, until someone can write a decent article. Thatcher131 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. I strongly dispute the assertion that all members of a band which passes WP:MUSIC, by whatever margin, are themselves notable - if there are no independent non-trivial sources then that is an end of it, for me - but it is in this instance at least an assertion of notability, which is what A7 is about. Not that I'd necessarily have untagged it, because nobody's perfect. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Set a redirect, add non-trivial info on her to the band article until it becomes a decent biostub, then branch out. ~ trialsanderrors 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and list at AfD - An article fails CSD:A7 if it "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Such an assertion did exist, so the article is not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. The validity of the assertion of notability should be debated in AfD. Nchaimov 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD as above Bwithh 01:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD unfortunately as it's got very little chance of surviving, and shouldn't. But A7 creep must be avoided. Herostratus 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. If any admin thought it wasn't a valid speedy, it wasn't a valid speedy. All of us (admins) need to be careful to check histories for stuff like that, and to rigorously follow the rules for speedy deletion, because usually nobody else checks our work. -- SCZenz 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to push things along unnecessarily -- but why hasn't this article been restored yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cerise (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

Misenterpretation of pages and unfair deletion as it was my first wiki page ever and I was going to add to it once I learnt more VictoryAfrika 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page of a famous underground UK rapper, Stylah. It was deleted dut to a lack of links, which unfair as it was my first page and i intended on adding to it once i had learned new skills. Please undelete it as the points to delete it were unvalid. I wrote in the article that Stylah was featured on the #1 US bestselling Mixtape Catch 22 and because an administrator only found two results when he 'googled' it, ihe deleted Stylah's page. This is unreasonable as it is underground hip-hop and that is the reason it got two links. This is a strong, fair and valid point that should be enough to undelete this page. Please do this. I also edited the page Poisonous Poets and added Stylah to the roster. It was quickly taken off even though there are many, many, many interviews that say that Stylah is a Poisonous Poet. This is just stupid as if anyone were to type in 'Stylah Poisonous Poet' they would get a lot of links PROVING this point beyond reasonable doubt. Undelete and Overturn Thank You. VictoryAfrika 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the avoidance doubt, the requestor created an article recently, and is not referring to the one deleted via AFD. The new one was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I have no idea if WP:CSD#G4 was tested or not. GRBerry 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of unreferenced and speculative article with no claim to notability other than unsubstantiated hype. Example: 'Styzilla' as he calls himself is going to release his debut album Treading Water in 2007 and has upped his buzz by releasing a dubbed named So Fly on the Jim Jones Song - We Fly High which is an example of his superior metaphores, flow and wordplay and Arab Militant with fellow poet Lowkey. VictoryAfrika, what we need is for this person to have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Underground rappers do make it, but generally not before they have released a couple of albums and charted at least once. Please see WP:MUSIC for some guidance. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The AfD settled any reasonable doubt as far as notability goes, and the last version tossed around sales figures of 9000 copies, which is pretty low (in the UK, a gold record is 100,000 copies) and probably self-reported anyway. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a copy of the wiki page and i will do it again. I promise you I will. It will be acceptable. Please. Also. I was not tossing around figures of 9000 copies sold. Go to the stylah interview on www.hiphopgame.co.uk or www.ukhh.com and you will see proof. ALSO, 9000 sold is a good number. That was for his debut CD and it sold at least 12000 but he sold 9000 HIMSELF. All records sold on his debut 'Prince of Thieves were idependantly sold by him and his friends on Oxfard Street, Carnaby Street, other parts of London or the UK. SO to sell them yourself is a big accomplishment. http://www.hiphopgame.co.uk/site/interviews/artists/stylah Please send me the page back so I can re-do it under wiki standards. Thank you. --VictoryAfrika 11:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the GFDL you can have a copy yourself. No worries, if you want a copy just ask an admin. --sunstar net^talk 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD AfD 2)

After a year, the game has grown. It was previously deleted for violating WP:WEB - as well as having a lack of useful sources. Some of the following are small, some large. Still, they're all independent, verifiable sources. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, word of mouth has helped the game grow. It's been mentioned in quite a few sites, such as:

• [3]. It's a five page article, and was mentioned in the deletion nomination. It devotes equal time to 'Bejeweled' and 'Nexus War'.
• [4]
• [5] - A link from the wiki of a similar game, [Urban Dead].
• [6]
• [7] - Answers.com Link.
• [8] - Small mention down the bottom.
• [9] A blog - but a lengthy review of Nexus War. See also [10] - a negative review of the game, after he changed his mind.
• [11]
• [12]
• [13] - Mention in the Multiplayer Online Games Directory
• [14] - A FireFox plugin, created for the game.
• There are also multiple websites hosting information - for example, a map of the game, character generators, crafting assistants - I'm fairly sure that these are not independent, but still.

• Are there any sources that are not user-editable? Every one of those seems to track back to a wiki or forum of some kind, with the exception of the first, which was seen at AfD and is not really about the game as primary focus, and even when it does address the game it's only to dscuss why it is browser-based. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, missed your comment. Yes, there are very little non user-editable sources, but there are some. (Is Answers.Com, etc, user-editable? Not sure.) Still, it's got quite a few mentions in other sources. The lack of sources, while still having a larger number of players than games that do, is probably due to the fact that the game is spread by user-edited sources. But none the less, I'd guess there are, probably, about 1-2 page length sources, and about 3-4 mentions in lists of games. All independent, might I add. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I play the game it's fun but it's still not notable up to Wikipedia standards. Blogs and Wiki's are not reliable sources. Whispering 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't included any blogs - except one which was negatively based. Figured I'd throw that one in for depth. And while there are some wikis, there are also articles and pieces of info from places such as Answers.Com. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 07:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article from answers.com is a mirror of our deleted article. *thumps head against wall* —Cryptic 08:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The allexperts.com, reference.com, and opentopia.com articles are all mirrors of our deleted content too, and all say so very very clearly. Strong keep deleted, zero nontrivial references; only one reference that's remotely close to valid; and that one was explicitly rejected at the AFD. And we really badly need to rethink whether it's still worth it to encourage mirrors to keep on republishing this sort of dreck with only the barest passing nod to the GFDL. —Cryptic 08:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Rose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

hi this article was deleted because of self promotion since she is just some girl from you tube, but there is a very prominent porn actress with the same name. she appears in whorecraft. ty Modesty84 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!!!! No one read what i posted. i agree the mia rose article should be delete but there is ANOTHER mia rose who is a porn actress who should /get her own page!!!!!!!! the mia rose i am talking about is actually cited on the page- [AVN_Awards_2007]

• Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability makes this a valid A7. 20,000 views on YouTube is not a remarkable number. --Coredesat 07:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no version contained any claim to notability. Example: "Mia is now taking steps to launch a solo career and try to carve her own way into the world's eye and Entertainment Industry". Come back when the second album goes platinum, or rather, when there is multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I'm assuming that the "very prominent porn actress" (oh, I'm biting my tongue here) is different from the YouTube girl? If so, not much point in re-creating an article about someone else, then. --Calton | Talk 08:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A7 deletion An article denying notability definitely lacks an assertion of notability. If Calton is making the wrong assumption, there would need to be a reliable source to document that, and the deleted article makes no reference to such a role, so doesn't help with building an article on their purportedly notable activity. GRBerry 18:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If the user wants to recreate an article about the porn actress, with reliable sources, xe can go ahead and do that. Xe does not need the deleted article contents to work with. ColourBurst 19:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Mays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Billy Mays is a well-known and even more well-recognized figure in North America. A search for his name on Google returns 955,000 results (three times the amount for Gary Brolsma, who is undoubtedly a notable internet figure), and searches for other queries such as "OxiClean guy" or "Oxyclean guy" consistently return hundreds or thousands of pages. Here are a few articles from credible news organizations to help establish notability: Tampa Bay Business Journal Article, Cincinnati Enquirer Article. (The latter article discusses his "ubiquitousness" and the success that his ads have brought him). Davemcarlson 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Boldly undeleted, notability clearly asserted. AfD optional, I think it would be kept by acclamation with the sources added. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I am a little confused--where is the AfD, or what exactly are we reviewing? Can something be brought directly to Deletion Review without a prior listing in some deletion process? DGG 20:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion. if you click on logs above you get the deletion/restoration/protection history. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• close DRV? If anyone wants this deleted they can take it to AfD. --W.marsh 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd asked the deleting admin earlier if they had any objections. They archived the query. GRBerry 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Nude Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

Speedy deleted by me as having no claim to notability, restored out of turn with "I've heard of it" as rational... I tried to userfy to the restoring admin's space so that he could add a source, but that was soundly rejected. *shrug*
brenneman 05:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the article was deleted from Brenneman's removing the link to it at Kitten Natividad. I undeleted it with a note on Brenneman's talk page suggesting Afd would be better than speedy delete in this case. I seem to have gotten on Brenneman's nerves by doing this and he on mine in reply, which I regret and was not my intention. I request this question be looked at by someone other than myself or Brenneman (preferably someone with enough familiarity with beauty pagents &/or nude events to judge the speedy delete worthyness of the topic). Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC) P.S.: For the record I "soundly rejected" nothing. -- Infrogmation 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and AFD, deleted version was abysmal, but events aren't A7 (article refers to the beauty contest and not the title won at said contest). --Coredesat 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to AfD. Questions over sourcing and level of notability are legitimate, but that's for AfD I think. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Restoring the history behind a protected ((tempundelete)) screen is acceptable during a deletion review. However, one of our disputing admins had restored without that screen citing this review. I've put it in place. GRBerry 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per what the other two have said. Mathmo ^Talk 05:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I'm a bit frazzled by this. There are two questions at hand:

  1. Was the speedy an acceptable one? (Important so that my future deletions are properly "tuned.")
  2. Could an article about this subject meet the inclusion guidelines?

  Re #1: I attempted to ensure that no mistake was made with regards to number 2 by userfying this. The burden is on someone wishing to include material, not someone who is removing it. The whole article consisted of "Miss Nude Universe is an annual beauty contest where contestants appear in the nude. Two noteworthy contestants are Nina Mercedez and Lauren Powers. [ab:both red links]" While the speedy deletion criterion doesn't say "events" explicitly, they don't run this event as a charity, so it's quite reasonable to lump this in under groups and companies. I remain fairly unmoved in my conviction that this was a valid speedy prior to anyone objecting to it.

  Re #2: Once there is an objection raised, we start to talk about sources, etc. With all due respect, I'm finding it hard to believe that if a grunt user had brought this speedy here (as opposed to an admin restoring it) we'd see a long queue of people saying "endore, without prejudice to a properly sourced re-write." We should hold each other to the same standard we do n00bz. More to the point there's nothing to undelete. It's the most pathetic of micro-stubs. Rather than polishing our, err "selves" here with process wonkery, either let someone write something decent or let it stay deleted. I utterly fail to see the point in restoring a value-free article.

  brenneman 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to AfD. My God, are they still running Miss Nude Universe? If so it must have been going for over thirty years, that alone is a possible notability factor. Has doubtless been written up multiple times in Playboy, at least. Definitely not a speedy, although as basically a gimmick might well not survive an AfD. But deserves a fair hearing. Herostratus 07:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline speedy; I'd've prodded it instead if I found it, but likely have taken no action either way if I saw it in CAT:CSD. It's clearly disputed enough to warrant sending it to AFD now, though. —Cryptic 08:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is really pointless If a speedy is ever subject to a sane challenge, and there is obviously some question about it, then we are going to need to have a discussion somewhere. So undelete the thing and send it to afd for that discussion. There is zero point in bringing it here - because all that happens is we have one discussion here, and then possibly a second at afd (1+1=2). Challenged speedies go to afd (unless there is an overwhelming need to keep deleted in the meantime e.g. attack pages).--Doc^g 09:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy because there's nothing really here to assert, but Doc's reasoning for relisting is sound as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not really arguing for relisting. Since we're now having this discussion here now, we may as well endorse the deletion, which was valid IMO. I'm just arguing that we'd be better to take such disputes straight to afd and never list them here. Just have once discussion there, because if we were to overturn here - we'd just end up with two discussions. That's unnecessary. All rationally contested speedies should go immediately to afd. --Doc^g 13:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All rationally contested speedies should go immediately to afd." is a great idea. Shaundakulbara 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The article asserts notability "sorta", which means the Speedy Delete was unwarranted. The criteria for what can be Speedy Deleted is very limited. This article needs alot of work to pass AfD however. I have heard of this too and bet verifiably sources can establish notability. Shaundakulbara 13:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD I have no opinion about he subject or the article. But there are quit a number of challenged speedies, some challenged for good reason, some as a desperate hope. To take them to the final appeal step immediately is like appealing directly from the traffic court to the supreme court--it clogs us here, and brings the discussion to a place where fewer people participate. Afd has a purpose: to debate an article based on its merits with respect for the WP standards and --to an extent--precedents, with established procedures for bringing the article to the attention of those interested in the subject matter. Except in an emergency, there is no reason to bypass the steps. A certain US supreme court decision earlier this decade bypassed the steps, and we all know what happened--the fairness of the decision will be disputed forever. Appeals from speedy go to AfD, except that if the matter is suitable for prod, they can go there first. DGG 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Shanty No Lemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Show is a legit show, featured on Australian OutRadio2 now (www.outradio2.com.au) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ironhide1975 (talk • contribs).

• Endorse deletion, Write in userspace The deleted content bears no resemblence to that claim. You should know this, because you wrote both deleted versions. Please write at User:Ironhide/A Shanty No Lemon and come back when you have an article. Remember to include in the article the reason why the show is notable, and use reliable sources to write the article. If you have a conflict of interest, you probably should wait for someone else to write the article, but if you believe you can attain a neutral point of view then I recommend following the guidance at the amnesia test. GRBerry 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The latest version deleted by me in December was a more than obvious A7 speedy; it consisted just of one sentence ("X is a podcast located out of Columbus Ohio" plus a weblink). The previous version speedied in August was more extensive, but still contained no assertion of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, for some reason I was notified about this even though I didn't "[close] the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-[delete] it". However, on the article, I endorse GRBerry's suggestion about userspace, as well. Daniel.Bryant 07:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, no article. Herostratus 07:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Monarch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

No Consensus in AFD Just H 02:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On one hand, some sources of questionable use were provided at the AfD. On the other, it doesn't look like anyone bothered to put them in the article. I can't see the deleted article, so I think this is an endorsement of the closure, but this is certainly one that can be rewritten with the sources if it's, in fact, possible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The article asserted that basically all information originates from Cathy O'Brien, and claimed her book as the primary reference. Since the article is claiming only one original source exists, and really all the information in this article is in the article on her (mostly the intro), it is just duplicative. Consider delinking there and creating a redirect. If the other sources offer any independent corroboration (not data derived from from her or Phillips), maybe then we can talk, but with the article claiming there is only one source, now matter how many people parrot the claims, there is only one source, which isn't multiple sources. GRBerry 03:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse closure This is not suppression or censorship, but merely proportional weight. There should be one article, and it is reasonable in this case that it should be the one on the individual. In this case having just one issimply NPOV, and I think this is obvious without having to see the article. DGG 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hanson-Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Amanda Rishworth has similar notability and chances of being elected, but Sarah Hanson-Young is the state lead candidate for another party. Why was Sarah Hanson-Young deleted and not Amanda Rishworth? Because one party is smaller than the other? Zzymurgy 01:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Just because one article is kept and another is deleted doesn't warrant that article to be undeleted. Both articles were sent to AfD, and one was kept after no consensus was reached, and the other was deleted. The AfD for this article was nearly three months ago, but unless these three months have significantly added to the notability of this person, then the article should remain deleted. I personally think the deletion per AfD should not be overturned because the subject of the article has not yet won the election, and has made no real assertion of notability. Also, a Google test yields 1,120 G-hits, which is surprising since I would expect more from a leading party candidate. Nishkid64 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You're missing my point. Notability is similar.

To use your Google example, there is more than one person called Amanda Rishworth, so Google "Amanda Rishworth" ALP Labor to return 162 results. There is only one Sarah Hanson-Young, and "Sarah Hanson-Young" returns 127 results, which is very comparable. I don't believe that Google is an accurate test anyway - you can make Google say whatever you want it to say - but accepting it as a crude indicator, the comparability is clear.

Neither of these people have won an election, so if we are deleting non-winning candidates, we should delete both, not one and not the other. It's a double standard.

Although Sarah had several links to media stories on her WP page and Amanda currently has none, this is not an accurate measure either. For example, Ann Bressington was never mentioned in the media before the 2006 election, yet she effortlessly won a seat in the upper house. --Zzymurgy 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 media articles in the last four years mention Sarah. Her husband, who shall remain completely anonymous, scores 61 too. michael ^talk 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. Hanson-Young is a current candidate with a very real chance of winning a Senate seat. Her article would never have been deleted if she was a US candidate, and it's pure systemic bias to treat Australian ones differently. Rebecca 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the wikipedians in the Hanson-Young AfD were Australian. Unless Aussies have something against Australian politicians, assuming good faith would be nice. As a side note, the Australian senate is somewhat different to the US senate. In the USA, the senate is more notable than the lower house, whereas the opposite is true in Australia. Andjam 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure One of the AFDs had consensus, the other didn't. Thus, both were closed properly. If you want to understand this, do the simple job of nose counting. Measuring consensus is fairly straightforward when the opinions are that lopsided in the AFD on this person. Even better for measuring consensus, read the two sets of keep comments. In one discussion, there is a completely unpersuasive argument that she has a chance of winning the next election, in the other there is a semi-persuasive argument that she has a chance of winning the next election. Notice which article got kept - the one with better chances and more people that thought the article should be kept. Even if the cases were exactly identical, which they aren't, inconsistency is a natural consequence on a wiki; see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability#A possibly helpful analogy to numbers for an explanation of this. GRBerry 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC) updated, see below GRBerry 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply your words:

"a completely unpersuasive argument that she has a chance of winning the next election, in the other there is a semi-persuasive argument that she has a chance of winning the next election"

are entirely subjective. The reason I want this article undeleted is not necessarily that both candidates have a reasonable chance of winning their seats (although I believe they both do), but because they are significant candidates in their own right. They were both involved in high-profile campaigns in the 2006 election, and they will both be running very high-profile campaigns in 2007.

I am not disputing the weight of the opinions in each Afd, I am seeking for the debate to be re-opened on the grounds of consistency on WP. --Zzymurgy 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse closure There seems to have been a concensus for delete. I had worried about systemic bias, but smallish third party candidates for the US Senate are often deleted or put on AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Powers--T. Anthony 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Relist On consideration this might be worth another discussion after the conversation down below and my own efforts to look up the topic. Of late there seems to be a bit of a "deletion frenzy", which might truly be hurting articles on subjects not of the US/UK. However I'm not convinced enough of that to go for restore outright.--T. Anthony 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Once again we have naive Americans believing that the rules that apply to their (joke-of-a) political system apply to our own. Smallish/minor party candidates in America don't usually gain office in state or federal legislatures; in Australia, they do. This is a woman who has significant past involvement in politics and media attention, that, combined with her electoral aspirations, deem her worthy of an article. michael ^talk 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know insulting other people here is not very nice. I do know that other nations are not two party systems. The Greens seem to be about 5% or so of the Senate and I don't see anything, in the discussion or on my own, indicating they were competitive in South Australia. I'm not confident on endorsing closure, but being insulting to an entire country is not likely to win me over. (If you'd called the British or Canadian systems jokes it'd be the same deal)--T. Anthony 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting people or a country: I'm insulting a poor political system. If you were offended, I do apologise, but I (and many other non-US Wikipedians) do tire of what we perceive as such attitudes. Again, sorry if you were offended. michael ^talk 08:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a fairly conservative person I'm not at all patriotic. The idea of loving or being devoted to the US political system strikes me as being as goofy as a devotion to Ford Motors or Dr. Pepper. Still there are many places I go to, including here, where people belittle the US in ways they would not belittle other nations. No biggie though. I might even strike out my endorse of closure, but I'd need to know more about her or how her candidacy is being treated.--T. Anthony 09:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The woman has a past political history in both the Greens and student politics; this is reflected through the sizeable amount of media articles (48) and Google hits (127) about her. She has run for office before and she is very much in competition for a seat in the Australian Senate according to present polls. michael ^talk 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a reasonable case and the hits she gets are respectable sources. Most of those are just mentions of Greens in South Australia in general, but it's enough I switched to the idea of giving it another go.--T. Anthony 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please list the multiple non-trivial secondary sources of which this person has been primary focus. Ideally these should be independent of election campaigning, i.e. not derived from the biographical data provided by her campaign HQ. Of course, if they are only in respect of the election, then we can redirect to an article on the election. Or better still the article on the election on Wikinews because really an encyclopaedia has no business covering breaking stories during elections. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is re-created I can use media sources that are provided from an online newspaper archive. Copying and pasting their contents would be breaching copyright. michael ^talk 12:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or you could list them. Or you could work it up in user space, asking a friendly passing admin to userfy it for you. Or something. Nobody's saying you need to post full content - I have a Factiva sub so I can see full text for a lot of stuff. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: So link them. In the first place, most of the arguments for overturning seem to be based on WP:POKEMON. In the second, you are actually comparing a Pokemon to a Yu-Gi-Oh, because one is a party leader and the other is not. And in the third place, the central criterion for inclusion is that which Guy set forth, which seems not to have been satisfied. David Mestel^(Talk) 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you talking about? Isn't this the deletion review for an Australian politician?--T. Anthony 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - and most of the arguments to overturn are based on a WP:POKEMON argument: "he's more notable than Amanda Rishworth", and I'm saying that in any case the two are not comparable because one is a party leader and the other is not. Then I refer to Guy's comment as the central criterion for inclusion, and mention that it is not satisfied. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Pokémon test is an essay, not even a guideline or kind of advice. It also seems to be specifically about comparing articles to Pokemon or, in a broader sense, to any pop-culture character in fiction with an article. I still don't see the relevance, especially as you just assumed the reader would know of this "test" or understand the analogy to it.--T. Anthony 10:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well... I was kinda assuming that if the reader hadn't heard of it, he would click on the link. However, you are right that the page does not say exactly what WP:POKEMON has come to mean in common use. It is often used to describe an argument which relies on the statement "well, such-and-such has an article, and they're less notable". These arguments are not generally accepted as valid. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: per Zzymurgy's new references not seen at AfD. Kudos to him for finding them. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The party holds federal seats and this is one of their endorsed candidates. That demonstrates notability right there. In addition, there are plenty of citations such as news.com.au and cpa.org.au that fulfill WP:BIO no matter who she is or what she's doing. The viability of the Greens in this particular state cannot be counted against her strict biographical notability here. — coelacan talk — 03:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's one non-trivial published source (news.com.au). cpa.org.au only mentions her en passant. But let's have some more where that came from. David Mestel^(Talk) 07:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You want more? Why, there's The Border Mail, The Australian, and The ABC, all of which are from different dates and with a different focus. Zzymurgy 05:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent. Changed my !vote accordingly. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, please delete the other one too. Failed candidates are not notable in themselves, likely candidates in the next election is crystal balling. Make the rules nice and clear to avoid vanispamcruftment (which regrettably happened with Amanda Rishworth as well). As a side note, Zzymurgy is a supporter of The Greens, which she removed from her user page soon before asking for a review of this deletion. Andjam 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: Zzymurgy only states that she's interested in The Greens (the party Hanson-Young is in), not that she's a Greens supporter. I regret the error. Andjam 02:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone is notable who passes WP:BIO. — coelacan talk — 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - still is an outsider for the senate race, as per the AfD. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't matter. She passes WP:BIO with the links provided by myself and Zzymurgy. — coelacan talk — 03:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (updated, above opinion strcuk) Many of the new sources look and feel like reprints of press releases, but are enough to support renewed discussion at AFD. GRBerry 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure based on prior consensus, and relist for further consideration based on new information presented by Zzymurgy.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]