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

the reason is because this is a real rapper who many people and fans adore, and he is on the rise. a wikipedia page for this artist would only be appropriate. and besides, all of the information on there was true, and so was the reference. many people are not satisfied now that it has been removed, so please attend to this ASAP, thank you. Egyamanda 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I definatley agree with amanda, please overturn your decision and dont delete this page. as you can tell by his website, he has thousands of fans across the world (mostly through the internet), and killing his wikipedia page would leave many of those fans feeling empty about this rapper. Its best purpose is probably just to inform his fans more about his personal life than his own website provides them. i for one thought it was an excellent idea, because so many people i know wanted to find out more about this aspiring young artist. therefore i am all in favor of overturning this decision and restoring this wikipedia page. if it isnt restored, that would really suck for all the Coptic Orthodox people across the world, who are fans of his music and want to know more about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheman2000 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Since the AfD link is dead, it seems this article was speedy deleted. Can you tell us how this rapper meets the notability guidelines? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You can click 'logs' above to find the actual reason for the deletion (here it was, as you guessed, Articles-7). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I complete forgot about that link. Go figure. Anyway, will also endorse deletion unless some sort of notability of this person is proven. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion, valid Articles-7, will reconsider if nominator shows notability via several reliable sources. On the other hand, this is certainly the first rapper I've heard of who was "banned from several church conventions". Rock on! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion looks like a valid A7 to me. Please come back when WP:MUSIC guidelines are met. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The objections above don't concern guidelines. Shaundakulbara 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam4Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article asserts notability through verifiable sources. More can easily be provided. It is neither POV nor spammy; it was Wikified and had considerable information within. This article is being confused with previous versions with which the current author has no connection. The article was Speedy Deleted desite a "hangon" that had been there less than 24 hours. The topic of this article is a website used by men to meet for sex. The subject of this article may be creating an unjust bias against the article itself. House of Scandal 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you post the sources here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article was brushed out of existance while I was away from my computer, I don't know exactly. I am almost sure one was The Washington Post. If given the opportunity, I could have presented an avalanche of evidence. Some guys who met through this site were robbed or assaulted and it made the news in several media markets. It is also being used to locate and discharge gays in the US military. Health official are concerned about STD spreading through its members. Finally, the Washington Blade did an article about men finding long-term partners through it and its ilk.House of Scandal 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • REUTERS
    • Boston Globe
    • Michigan HIV prevention news
    • New York Daily News
    • San Diego Gay & Lesbian Times
    • Medical News Today
    • [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21210892.shtml The Post Chronicle]
    • Gay & Lesbian News
    • Washington Blade 1
    • Washington Blade 2
    • and so on... House of Scandal 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems likely that it was the Washington Blade rather than Washington Post that mentioned Adam4Adam by name. I think there may have been a Post reference, but I can't know as I was given no fair opportunity to improve it. House of Scandal 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I spend alot of time in AfD debates and I know the difference between a good article and a bad one. Although I can't see the Adam4Adam article, I have never seen the author make an article that wasn't properly cited. What's going on here? Shaundakulbara 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I'm the most recent admin to delete the article. The assertion above is operating under a critical misconception, the speedy delete had nothing to do with it being a repost or lacking sources, it was because the website fails to meet the WP:WEB criteria used as part of Wikipedia's effort to establish standards of notability. WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 is the specific speedy delete criteria employed. Reviewing the content of the article, it should be evident that the action was proper and the article should not be restored in its current form. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times, Washington Blade and New York Daily News were referenced to show its notabiliy. These don't count as WP:WEB-required "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"? As shown here, other references could have been provided if requested. Those three sources are enough so that the "hangon" should have been honored. As someone asked above, "what's going on here"? Seriously, what's really going on here and why wasn't an opportunity given to address concerns if it is true that "the speedy delete had nothing to do with it being a repost"? House of Scandal 20:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the actual mentions themselves non-trivial? I mean, for instance, the mention in the New York Daily News is ridiculously unimportant. Just mentioning the name of a site in an article (really just a side-note to the gossip column in that article) shouldn't (and I don't think does) count as much. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Several articles concern Manhunt.net, Craig's List and Adam4Adam collectively. Others mention Adam4Adam only. If given an opportunity, I would have discerned between trivial and non-trivial references. Why wasn't this article sent to AfD debate if notability was questioned? Why would someone Speedy Delete a substantial, Wikified article that has references and a "hangon" request? I'm not new here and I have seen articles with a fraction of this article's merit get a chance. The swift and unilateral deletion of this article was not per guidelines. House of Scandal 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The "hangon" tag was being abused by 71.160.33.83 (talk · contribs). I can find no abuse of process in this deletion. Whether or not it actually is notable is irrelevant here, the article as it stood when deleted did not make the claim to notability as far as I can see. If the article is notable, this can be established during a request for undeletion. Please note that I am endorsing deletion, not opposing undeletion. --Yamla 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Failure to meet WP:WEB is not a speedy deletion criterion, and a website being used to lure a murder victim is certainly a claim of notability. Whether that claim is sufficient and whether the references adequately support it is a question for AFD. —Celithemis 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: That's not quite accurate, WP:WEB serves as guidance for CSD A7, which _is_ a valid speedy deletion criteria for non-notable websites. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is quite accurate. A7 is that the article does not assert notability, not merely that it isn't notable. -Amark moo! 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn and list at AFD per this not being an A7 (it asserted notability - per A7, an assertion is enough), though I would more than likely argue to delete in an AFD, as most of the sources provided are either trivial or are multiple copies of the same Reuters story, which is not about the website itself (it just mentions it, which is not enough). --Coredesat 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - There's also an article about it at the New York Times Here's a second NYTimes article. This is obviously a notable subject. This seems to have been way too hastily deleted. Jeffpw 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn owing to numerous sources provided in this DRV. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have not been able to review all the sources alleged here because two of them require subscriptions. However, of the sources that I have reviewed, none establish the notability of this website. [1] is not an article about the website. It mentions the website in passing as an example but provides no detail to suggest that it is anything more than an average example of such a website. [2] and [3] are reprints of the same article (and thus is not evidence of "multiple" coverage). [4] draws from the same article but isn't even a full reprint - it's a mere abstract of the Reuters article. [5], [6], [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21210892.shtml], [7], [8] and [9] are independent articles but again are mere casual mentions of the website in articles which are about completely different topics. Unless definitive sources can be presented which are actually about this website, I must endorse the speedy-deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Speedy deletion decision seems ok. Article made no claim to encyclopedic notability. I agree with Rossami on the sources. Sources provided use the website as an example of a wider category of websites - this kind of use is a trivial reference.Bwithh 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The site has also been the subject of independant reviews which concern it solely. One neutral (semi-disfavorable) review is quoted in the article. The articles in which Adam4Adam is mentioned aren't about "completely different topics". They seem to be about (A) this sort of site re:STD's, (B) this sort of site re:the US military and (C) this sort of site re:relationships. When publications like New York Times discuss these topics, Adam4Adam is often mentioned. That the esssence of notability -- to be noted repeatedly --WikiLawyering aside.Shaundakulbara 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just love how "Wikilawyering" can wheeled out to toss any beyond-superficial consideration of policy overboard. Bwithh 02:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per above Fotografico 00:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and submit to complete AfD to resolve issues. Lack of claim of notability when notability can be shown is no excuse for speedy deletion. Haiduc 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: If anyone is interested in the unusually high turnout, I did a quick check and found this post. There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article, and it has been added to a "To Do" template, ((LGBT_open_tasks)). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I would have gladly undeleted the article at your first request, and was ready to do so (as I have any number of other times when people have asked), but then I read your immediate accusation of "abuse of authority". That's uncalled for, and while you're welcome to your opinion, I now invite you to find another admin to restore it for you."

• Response - Chairboy, your comment above seems a red herring to me, designed to distract from the real issue, which is that the article was deleted in spite of having notability. It also seems to me (once again, from your own comments) that you have your back up about this issue, and are being defensive. Seems to me you made a mistake. Another admin made a similar mistake with this article, and retored it. I urge you to do the same. And I also take issue with your implication that the LGBT Project is being used for votestacking, and that we project members are somehow not objective enough to determine if an article subject meets WP:N. If I have misinterpreted your remarks, I apologize, but I don't think I have. Jeffpw 08:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your member Shaundakulbara has made personal attacks against me, implied that I'm on some sort of anti-gay crusade, called me an asshole, and so on, and your congratulatory backslapping for these actions in this edit is unfortunate. I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place, if there's higher than usual turnout in any DRV, it's customary to make a note for the closing admin to review so he/she can make that determination for themselves once the review is over. In regards to my comment above, read the exchange. I've done nothing to prevent anyone from restoring the article, but when a user immediately launches into accusations that I'm some sort of evil, power mad dictator who's conspiring against them, why should I go out of my way for them? I'm a volunteer here, like anyone else. My responsibility is to exercise good judgement, and when someone else tagged the article for speedy deletion, I reviewed it and determined that it was an A7 deletion. If I made an error, then it should have been easy to find someone to undelete it once I told HouseOfScandal that I didn't appreciate his immediate assumption of bad faith. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More deceit, more hypocrisy, and now paranoid histrionics too.

• Chairboy Statement: There's now a Wikiproject that has been enlisted to help defend this article
• Chairboy Counterstatement: I made no statement that any vote stacking was taking place

You ignored a "hangon" and used your admin privileges to Speedy Delete an article which another admin had just restored. This was an abuse of power and when someone pointed that out (you were not called an evil power mad dictator and homophobe, that is your self-characterization) you decided to punish the author. When you volunteered to be an admin you agreed to follow guidelines and policies. Your observation of rules and policies should not be dependant on people kissing your butt. Encouraging civility doesn’t mean using the mop and keys to punish anyone who speaks to you in a manner you don’t like.

• Chairboy 3:why should I go out of my way...?

You went out of your way to kill the article. You’ve spent enormous energy trying to keep it dead. Don’t pretend like your current course of action was the path of least effort. And sir, I referred to you as an asshole indirectly, I didn’t say “Chairboy you are an asshole...I said “the editor who deleted this is an asshole.” You are one who keeps dredging up the fact that I was referring to you. Three Admins have already reminded me about civility, this was my first breech of it ever.  ::Get over it, Mary! - it is NOT relevant to this article’s notability. You are the one making this about editors not about articles. When you forced this article to go to Deletion Review you thus chose to have your admin practices scrutinized and now you don't like the results. If it seems many people are saying negative things against you, if a respected Wikipedian with many peer awards says you abuse your power, if you are described as an asshole by a (different) editor who has never been rude before, if you are being cast as a villain by an usually high turnout of editors, what could be the reason? Shaundakulbara 16:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed each of the issues you've brought up independently, please don't mischaracterize things. As such, I'll refrain from responding other than to ask that you not call me 'Choirboy'. I've taken great effort to carefully spell your name correctly as a sign of respect, please consider returning the favor. Let's try to keep this civil. I have, and as I mentioned above, I feel as if you haven't made the reciprocal effort. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Misspell was an error and has been corrected Shaundakulbara 17:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaundakulbara is not currently a member of WP:LGBT. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see her active on your project pages, both regarding this issue and having just presented new business. Jeffpw's endorsement of her smears against me on your project talk page is unfortunate. I hope you'll discourage this type of thing in the future, it hurts Wikipedia and, in the case of your group, draws attention away from the good work you've done. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a member there. There was already a post about this issue there and I just followed the history trail. Speaking of which, as much as you want to play private eye and scrutinize what everyone says to one another on this issue on our talk pages and so on, it STILL doesn't affect the article's notability. How do you not know this? Shaundakulbara 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm counting four members of WP:LGBT who have voted here - how this could be considered vote-stacking I don't know. Also, if you were to check out our deletion sorting list, you would find that we do not deluge XfDs with keep votes, but consider every article on its own merits (and even vote against each other). To accuse us of votestacking, when there is no exhortation either way on our list or template, is the knee-jerk reaction of someone upset at their judgement being questioned. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn The reason I'm commenting is because from the description the sources seem sufficient and the deletion patently unjustified. Perhaps others are here for the same reason, not the listing on a WProject page--a completely correct listing on an appropriate wikiproject page. This is one of the purposes these pages exist--to keep DelRev and AfD accessible by those interested in a subject, not just the relatively few full-time adjudicators. CSD A7 is for no assertion of N--if it is reasonably asserted whether explicitly or by the material, it should not be SD in the first place, but go to AfD. If someone challenges it in good faith it should certainly go to AfD. Otherwise the deleting admin is setting himself above the community. . DGG 04:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Speedy Delete template says that a "hangon" may be ignored "and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria." Was that the case here? No. Shaundakulbara 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and CLOSE Enough already. It's clear that this was speedied out-of-process. Wjhonson 09:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list A bunch of stuff to wade through. Originally deleted via PROD in May, deleted after blanking by author in August, incorrect G4 in September, then salted, salting cleared in December, incorrect G4 on 29 Jan that was fixed by the deleting admin the next day, but the speedy deletion and ((hangon)) tags weren't removed. No real reason for not deleting is visible in the deleted history of the talk page, so the hangon tag should be disregarded. We are left with a discussion over whether the A7 deletion was reasonable. The only thing I see as a claim of notability is down in the Vicitimization section "In October 2006 it was the locus of a conspiracy to find gay men online to rob; a number of men in New York City used the site to lure another man to a remote area where he was robbed and murdered." Frankly, I don't see how this will survive an AFD that follows the guidelines, but with a very weak claim to notability it should escape WP:CSD#A7, so I think we need to overturn and list. GRBerry 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD - Google cached reveals an article that mostly was an advertisement for adam4adam, but it did include eight footnotes, three of which were to the New York Times, New York Daily News, and Washington Blade. Speedy delete may have been too speedy of process. Comment: For those of you interested in having this article survive AfD, you may want to create a well referenced rewrite of the article now to update the article the moment it is relisted at AfD. Include an infobox (e.g., Infobox_Company) and sections such as a history section, a service section, a culture section, a criticism section, or other section for which there is Wikipedia reference material. -- Jreferee 01:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (and list at AfD if you like, though I suspect it could survive that). Clearly the article ought to be recreated because it was a speed delete which was contested, if it is contested it ought to go to AfD instead. There never was an AfD thus it ought to remain in mainspace until there is one that supports its deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 02:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong - contested speedy deletes can still be speedy deleted by admins. Prods (proposed deletions) are stopped by contestation Bwithh 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following statements are quoted word-for-word from Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion:

• reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended
• Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum.

Can this be any clearer? - Shaundakulbara 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make my statement incorrect? I was specifically responding to Mathmo's assertion that the mere act of contesting a speedy delete tag negates the possibility of speedy deletion - that's the case for Prods, not CSD tagging. Compare Template:Hangon and Template:Prod. This seems pretty clear to me. The excerpt you select from WP:CSD does not relate directly to the point I was making (which btw, seems generally in line with what Chairboy and Ozlawyer have to say about hangon templates in the discussion on Chairboy's talk page[10]). Bwithh 07:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The "hangon" tag may be ignored and the page may "still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria". This article does not unquestionably meet the speedy deletion criteria and hence the hang on should not have been disregarded. The guidelines I just pointed out make it clear that admins should not speedy delete unless its obvious an article has no notability, not does it even claim notability, and it is very likely no one would say otherwise. References to sources like the New York Times in connection to a murder in one city and a crime ring in another is certainly a "claim that might be construed as making the subject notable". Note the words "claim", "might" and "construed" -- the intent here is obviously to give every benefit of the doubt. The fact that the opinion here has been something like 14 to 3 in favour of "overturn" proves that, at the very least, the notability of this article is open for discussion. That means it should never have been speedy deleted. Even the admin who deleted this article said he would have restored it had he not been offended by the suggestion that he abused his privlidges. Would he have restored an article that DEFINATELY shouldn't have a place on Wikpedia? Of course not! Only an article that definately doesn't have a place should be speedy deleted. The rest go to AfD debates. Speedy delete exists to obliterate articles which are, in a word, worthless (spam, attack articles, hoaxes, vanity articles, and other badness). It is not for coherent articles with references to major newspapers and it sure isn't for articles that have 14 people saying it shouldn't have been speedy deleted. -Shaundakulbara 08:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in the past, mere claims to encyclopedic notability are sufficient to merit removal of a speedy delete tag. But I don't see any sign of that in the article, and apparently Chairboy and Ozlawyer didn't either. Its a matter of opinion whether mentions in news articles are encyclopedically notable or not (whether its from a news source with local or national or international focus - the NYTimes is all 3 btw and not every article it prints is automatically esteemed knowledge for the ages), but its within reasonable bounds to see such mentions as not asserting encyclopedic notability. Crime stories in newspapers are generally not encyclopedically remarkable. In addition, apparently no argument against the speedy delete was left on the talk page to accompany the hangon. So Chairboy was left with just a hangon tag. If it was felt that the speedy deletion was too hasty or out of order - that's why deletion review exists. There's no reason here for the bad faith assumptions about Chairboy's intentions or views. I'm not here to express opinions on Chairboy's behalf, but it seems clear to me from his talk page that he was ready to restore the article as a courtesy response to HouseofScandal's first assertion that he could provide a ton of evidence to show verifiable encyclopedic notability. Chairboy chose not to do this when he saw that HouseofScandal was assuming bad faith and asked HouseofScandal to make a request to another admin. This seems reasonable and does not indicate that Chairboy was tacitly admitting he was in error as you suggest. By the way, hoax and "vanity" articles are not subject to deletion by WP:CSD while this article is within the bounds of consideration under A7. Bwithh 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FACT: If 14 people question the speedy delete versus 3 who don't, then it didn't unquestionably meet speedy delete requirements. I can forgive Chairboy or anybody for a lapse in judgement. But at this point, your position just seems absurd. Your arguments about what constitutes notability don't belong here...that’s for AfD. All that is required to avoid quick delete is a "claim that might be construed as making the subject notable". BTW...Chairboy deleted the article the same day another admin recreated it after speedy deleting it by accident. The author apparently had no time to present a case and Chairboy was effectively vetoing another admin's decision.-Shaundakulbara 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, consensus can change even for deletion review decisions, so there's not exactly a solid "fact" to be uncovered here. No, this isn't AFD, we're discussing whether Chairboy's speedy delete decision was reasonable. I've already said that just a minimal claim of encyclopedic notability is needed. I don't see it in the article and I think Chairboy made an ok call. And I don't see why whether you "forgive" my opinion or not matters. Bwithh 11:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, not a legitimate speedy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Many things are clear as crystal in this review: 1. The page in question did not meet the utilized requirement for speedy deletion (CSD A7) 2. The article has various sources and thus stands a good chance of passing a good-faith AfD listing. 3. Some of the editors who opposed the SD could have been more civil; however, 4. Chairboy's refusal to un-delete the article because he was offended by what other editors said is petulant and childish (at best) 5. His job as admin in the situation is to consider the article, not those editors he is corresponding with, and there is no excuse for using your administrative powers (or holding them over someone's head, for that matter) because you are angry with the person. (I'll also note that, while Chairboy IS a volunteer, he should remember that his peers in the Wiki community elected him to his post). 6. Chairboy's supposition that posting this DRV on the LGBT noticeboard was vote-stacking (and that is clearly the assertion he was making) is troubling for various reasons, but for me mainly because it seems he assumed that all those who are members of the project would vote overturn simply because they are LGBT or interested in LGBT issues. This shows an enormous amount of disrespect for that project, as well as the LGBT editors of Wikipedia. Please, in the future, do not reduce us to our genders or our sexualities. That is extremely offensive. 7. Events like this one show a clear need for a serious discussion regarding Speedy-Deletion and the policies therein. CaveatLector^Talk 00:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel my actions were in any way improper and, as you suggest, indicative of a person who should not have the admin bit, I invite you to make use of the request for comment mechanism so we can discuss this in greater depth. I make myself available for scrutiny at any point, and I'm always looking for ways to improve. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy has been created to assist your admirable efforts at improvement. I hope it is helpful. Shaundakulbara 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I note that the reason given for deletion in the logs is: "WP:CSD Articles, subsection 7 - No assertion of notability is made by this person, music group, or organization". Surely the Victimization subsection of Adam4Adam would have been enough reason by itself as claim for notability? Seems to me it should have appeared easy to see that this reason (Articles, subsection 7) for speedy deletion doesn't apply. Mathmo ^Talk 12:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Chairboy acted in good faith, but I disagree with the A7 speedy deletion, because the article did assert notability. Picaroon 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Was all the drama really necessary? Some people should be ashamed of themselves, and I certainly don't mean Chairboy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eur_20041214_tues3art.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|FU review)

This image was unilaterally deleted while deletion review copyright discussion was in progress and less than 24 hours after a deletion dispute tag had just been put on the image. Nardman1 11:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion, image was speedily deleted as replaceable fair use. There have been no previous DRVs on this image, and the link given by the nominator is to a WP:CP discussion and not a deletion debate. --Coredesat 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free replacement, as was contended on the fair use rationale which was added only HOURS before the image was deleted. There isn't even a bio of him on the Northern Ireland Assembly page. [11]. I've looked in vain. Nardman1 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion A live politician is a definite case of a replacable fair use, assuming the use was fair to begin with. First, an image could be solicited, for guidance see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Second, politicians appear in public or semi-public settings, generally with the schedule available from their PR staff, and a Wikipedia could take a photograph at such a time and release it into the public domain or via an adequately free license. GRBerry 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful endorse deletion, you'll need to change our fair use policies before this would be allowed. However, I really don't like them in this case. -Amark moo! 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta the four-legged chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I wanted to add something to this article I'd read before and found it was speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as not-notable but that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria. The article was well-sourced to news events and a simple Google search [12] shows 52,000 hits, a third of that of Mike the headless chicken - seems notable enough to me in the realm of mutant chickens. An article with notability and reliably sourced shouldn't be thrown away on whim. SchmuckyTheCat 08:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the information the article gave: "Henrietta is a four-legged chicken at Brendle Farms in Somerset, Pennsylvania. She was found living normally among the rest of the chickens after 18 months. She was adopted and named by the farm owners 13 year old daughter, Ashley, who refuses to sell the chicken on the Internet. Henrietta has Congenital disorder. The second (hind) legs are fully formed but non-functional." That doesn't even begin to claim any sort of notability. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it reads like a stub. It was sourced as well, correct? Does an article have to contain an intro sentence that says "Subject is notable because ..." in order to not be speedy deleted? SchmuckyTheCat 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to AfD. The article doesn't meet any speedy-deletion criteria, it is sourced, and at least one editor objects to its deletion. Those are all good reasons to send the article to AfD, per WP:PI. If the article had no chance to survive the AfD, the deletion could be retained per WP:SNOW. However, the article has a chance, albeit probably very slim, of surviving, so it should have its day in court. Herostratus 16:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, possibly list. A good faith challenge at best, a legitimately disputable speedy at worst. Worth a good look. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list on AfD. Apparently the subject of an Associated Press story, definitely doesn't seem to be speedy fodder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. as per Herostratus. Mathmo ^Talk 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states "If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum." Speedy delete is for extreme cases and may be being misused quite often. Shaundakulbara 12:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PopeofPeru (edit | [[Talk:User:PopeofPeru|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I have initiated this review per the suggestion of original deleter Proto after my attempt to persuade him to reverse his decision failed. This userpage of an unbanned editor was deleted without justifiable cause as part of the reaction to the recent round of Colbert vandalism. I therefore request that the userpage be fully restored AND/OR the page be restored and the congratulatory comments be moved to the respective talk page, where they properly belong. --Hemlock Martinis 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (Note: This is my first attempt at a deletion review, so if I breach protocol in some way I would appreciate the notification. Thanks! :D)[reply]

• An applicable thread discussing this is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PopeofPeru. The text of the deleted user page was a series of congratulatory messages (and nothing else) about how awesome the user's vandalism was. Not only should they not be restored, they shouldn't be moved to the talk page, either. PopeofPeru is lucky he has not been indefinitely blocked. Proto::► 09:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Of course, PopeofPeru is free to re-create any user page he wants, once he's back, as long as it doesn't contain blatantly inappropriate material. He didn't have one prior to the Colbert incident, and he hasn't expressed any wish to have this one back - in fact, he hasn't edited at all since his unblocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note, he's now created a new user page, and indicated on his talk page he himself doesn't care about the deleted content. I think this review is effectively moot. Proto::► 21:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. May have been a WP:USER violation, but certainly dind't meet any sort of speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Technical overturn, but I question that DRV has the power to foist a userpage someone does not want upon them. He doesn't want it, so keep deleted. -Amark moo! 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, his having the option is worth pursuing, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Proto::► 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Do we really need a speedy criterion for pages that promote vandalism? I would have hoped that this would fall into the 'obvious' file. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I don't think it is a stretch to say that a congratulating someone for obvious and undisputed vandalism is itself vandalism, which puts this under WP:CSD#G3. GRBerry 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I fight vandalism too. But as far as I know, vandalism is vandalism and congratulating someone for vandalism in user space is free speech. Blocking/deleting are supposed to be constructive/preventative measures, not punative measures. If there are guideline to the contrary I would like to learn them for future reference. Someone musn't be treated contrary to policy because we think they are a "bad guy". Shaundakulbara 12:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The user already replaced his page and doesn't seem to want the deleted one back. Is it really "free speech" to give him back a version he doesn't want in the first place? GassyGuy 15:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am guessing the discussion here is a rhetorical rather than a practical one; I think we're trying to hash out how this sort of thing should be handled in the future. So no, we don't force the user to have their old page back! Shaundakulbara 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dogme ELT is an internet forum for teachers of English as a second language. On November 4, 2006, the Dogme ELT article was deleted as copyvio. On November 15, 2006, the article was deleted per this AfD. The article was speedy deleted on January 30, 2007 by The JPS. A reason given for the speedy deletion was speedy deletion criteria 4 - "Recreation of deleted material". Malangthon asserts that none of the speedy deletion criteria applies and now request review of the January 30, 2007 speedy deletion by The JPS. Malangthon posted a request at ArbCom. trialsanderrors took Malangthon's request posted at ArbCom, created this deletion review request on January 31, 2007, and post the following ArbCom quote from Malangthon in support of this deletion review request: "The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy. (...) Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)" This lead section was revised on February 4, 2007 by Jreferee to provide some clarification. -- Jreferee 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's my closure that's contested, so I just refer to my closing statement. ~ trialsanderrors 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looks like the deletion that is contested is User:The JPS's speedy per WP:CSD#G4. ~ trialsanderrors 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The prior lead paragraph to this deletion review contained the statement "Request by Malangthon (talk · contribs), who accidentally sent it to ArbCom:", which is referenced to in the below discussion. -- Jreferee 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. There are still no sources. I don't quite know why you think it was acidentally sent to Arbcom. Thinking that they didn't intend to have Arbcom rule on it and punish the people who deleted it goes past my ability to assume good faith. -Amark moo! 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: still no reliable sources. -Amark moo! 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK trailsanderror. if User:The JPS's speedy was not for the article that was deleted after a discussion in 2006 then yes, this is a different matter. A stub written after the article was deleted has been deleted. I have not been able to get a reason for the deletion from the User who deleted it but I know it was in compliance with Wikipedia policy. There may have been minor formatting preferences that were lacking but that is no reason to delete. There is a User Calton who is saying that it was deleted because it was simply a replacement of previously deleted material--which it is not. This is a new stub for a whole new article. I think User:BrainyBabe can confirm this as well.
Your attention to this is welcomed. Malangthon 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
Arbcom's remarks
*There are still no sources.
:Incorrect. The sources are listed
*I don't quite know why you think it was acidentally sent to Arbcom. Thinking that they didn't intend to have Arbcom rule on it and punish the people who deleted it goes past my ability to assume good faith.
:Not sure what this is meant to be. I could not find the deleter and anyone who insist that navigating the massive number of pages here and getting specific directions to adress specific problems needs to rethink this. I spent quite a bit of time looking for the deleter after it had been deleted. There was a short notice on my User page. I went to the stub and it was gone. I have been preoccupied researching a vast number (more than 100 thus far) of journal articles on autism for the Wikipedia article and this was in and out before I knew it with no one trying to justify a speedy deletion. So I went through the steps and was left only with arbitration. This is a problem with speedy deleters. They drop things because they have a strong POV about stubs or articles that are in fact hardly frivolous and then off they go--but that requires an administator so that means that an administrator was hardly giving this a good look.
Dogme ELT is as article stub justified both in content and in form. I have been in applied lingustics for more than 20 years. I heard the article had been deleted, I read what I could find. Went out and emailed applied linguists worldwide to see if there was any merit in it. They had no problem understanding that there was merit. The type of organisation that Dogme ELT represents is not at all unlike 'The Inklings' for example and who here will say Tolkein and Lewis were engaged in meaningless pastimes.
Dogme ELT may or may not signal a paradigm change in the philosophy of langauge education. That is not the point. It is a legitimate forum for professional educators from which they derive a growing body of material and support for a change in education policy in an area of profound influence--the ability of people to communicate with each other.
I have absolutely no connexion with this group. I went into the forum and read extensively and I asked a great many other people who responded via email. In addition to the forum contact address, the Guardian articles and the piece by the woman from the British Council, these serve to substantiate the existence of the forum. The comment that there are no sources is absurd.
This has merit and is Wikipedia worthy. Saying otherwise is strictly POV. I have established the existence of the entity and have correctly described what it is and what it does. Malangthon 02:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just found this at the Dogme ELT site. I need to know what is going on.
Dogme ELT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:"This page was deleted from Wikipedia, either because an administrator believed a consensus was reached among editors that it is unsuitable as an encyclopedia entry, or because an administrator felt it met one or more conditions for speedy deletion. However, an appeal has been made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored and protected with this message in place. If you would like to see the article that was deleted, please check its history. You may wish to contribute to the discussion at Deletion review following your inspection. If there seems likely to be a strong consensus to undelete and you wish to improve this article meanwhile, you may wish to make a request for the unprotection of this article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. "
I would like access to the appeal procedure. Which link do I follow? Malangthon 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the appeal procedure. -Amark moo! 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. To suggest that User:Malangthon "accidentally" posted at WP:RfArb doesn't Assume Good Faith, it Assumes Facts Not in Evidence, given the language on the article and user talk pages such as Calton...simply makes a mockery of the assertion and displays a destructive attitude of other editors...displays willful abuse...Please desist from further vandalsim or I will make additional requests for arbitration to protect this stub from any further arbitrary acts that may be committed [13], claims that referring him to the speedy deletion criteria constitutes [m]ustering group support by trying to marginalise this editor...an abusive and meaningless, not to say, inaccurate ploy. [14], and the odd proclamation that he was making a PDF of comments that had been deleted from his Talk Page -- comments which never appeared there to begin with [15] (go ahead, check the history).
  In any case, as to the actual issue at hand: Endorse deletion. There are NO reliable sources: the ones claimed are rubbish, as I've already pointed out to User:Malangthon on the article talk page [16]: one Guardian article that doesn't even mention the group, a Guardian message board, and the BC article only tacks on mention of the group at the end. Coverage is not non-trivial, multiple, or from reliable sources. This is a textbook repost speedy deletion. --Calton | Talk 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accidental" stricken. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Appears to be just another non-notable web forum. Article contained no assertion of popularity, wide public interest, or importance. Sole citation to a WP:RS was to an story about the general subject, not the forum that is the subject of the article. --MCB 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Web forum that doesn't even have its own domain? Give me a break. 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Unsigned comment added by JzG (talk · contribs)

REBUTTAL:
*Accidental is not nor ever was an issue. The deletion was done before I got there, I went through all the stages I could, the deletion had been done spuriously to begin with and a second deletion was being threatened and again without discussion or justification given. The last resort--since I could not find anyone to discuss it with nor anyone to take responsibility for the deletion--was simply that, the last resort. It had been done and was being threaten again. The categorisation of 'accidental' is irrelevant and moot at the same time. It is being used to detract from the issue at hand--spurious and malicious deletions.
*'Appears to be a non-notable web forum'. What it appears to be is not an issue--verify the reasons for deletion within policy guidelines. What it is, is the issue. I have many years in the business and these forums are essential in developing the philosophy and practice of a very significant part of education and learning. Having been to literally hundreds of international conferences, given papers, chaired or directed significant not-for-profit organisations, it is, in my experience, worthy of note. Opinions to the contrary--opinions drawn from 'it appears to be' are unsubstantiated. The vigour with which this 'deletion at whim' is being carried out make it clear to me that the question must be posed--what is the hidden agenda here?
Spurious and ad hoc rationale posed here--
no assertion of:
popularity and wide public interest (this is redundant),
importance (This is very POV).
Sole citation to a WP:RS was to an story about the general subject, not the forum that is the subject of the article.
Web forum that doesn't even have its own domain
These are not reasons for deletion.
*A. Popularity or wide public interest--Small articles on the ranks and duties of Roman soldiers who fought at Adrianople against the Goths or the role of the curiales in civil administration while historically significant are hardly riveting reading to the vast majority of people who can read English--ever see a poll taken on popularity in Wikipedia on this prior to deletion?
*B. Importance is entirely POV--this in itself refutes demands for deletion
*C. Sole citations (in fact neither a sole citation nor unreliable) and their focus are not the issue. The issue is that (a) it is sourced and (b) therefore its existence is verified. There are more than a few articles and stubs here with single and rather vague sources. There are in fact more than one source to the DOGME stub and the description is both accurate and verifiable so this is a fabrication.
*D. 'Fora without their own domain' is not listed as criteria for Deletion an article or stub.
Summary: The case for deletion is based on
*A. Fabrication--the inaccuracy of which is verifiable;
*B. Multiple voices--get enough people to speak out against it and that is reason enough!?—the Roman Coliseum springs to mind;
*C. Criticism that assert reasons for which the deletion is not listed as justifiable cause for deletion.
*D. Criticism that assert unfounded reasons for which the deletion is not listed as justifiable cause for deletion.
and
*E. The reasons for deletion given here above are not the original reasons for deletion--It was DELETED for REPOSTING A DELETED ARTICLE.
This is essential--the voices for deletion are literally making it up as they go along. They have no case and can not defend the original premise for deletion.
-- Malangthon 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A word of advice? If you want people to pay attention to what you say, the best way to go about it is not to assume that the people who want it deleted are acting in bad faith. And it is a repost of deleted content, essentially. It was deleted for having no good sources, and you still have no good sources. -Amark moo! 01:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. Pay attention to what is being said? User:Amarkov has not paid any attention at all. If facts are not enough--as User:Amarkov says here--then why is User:Amarkov even involved? Once again, we see that this is not about the original rationale--refuted rationale--for deletion. Staying on topic seems to be problematic for User:Amarkov.

B. Now we see the qualifier 'essentially' attached to the statement for deletion. How far do we have to go till we get to, 'sorta like' or 'looks similar to'?

C. User:Amarkov has now stated without equivocation that the reason for deletion was not the asserted reason, it is in fact a dispute over sources. Again the reasoning and the quarrel--not an objective argument--is fallacious and very POV. Malangthon 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the previous article was a lack of reliable, independent sources. Thus, any article which fails to include reliable, independent sources is a repost, regardless of if the words are different. And it doesn't matter why it was deleted, if it should not be undeleted. Which it shouldn't. -Amark moo! 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reiteration (RE: User talk:Amarkov 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)). The tedium of the serial attacks and continued failure to address the rebuttal clearly shows the deletion vote is being made by those who are not concerned with the issues at hand. This is not about the merits of the stub but about repeating again and again refuted and disproven assertions--trial by fatigue. Make your case. Show that the deletion rationale was in fact justified--that rationale stated, not the ad hoc nonsense that is being served up here. When that 'undelete' takes place we can get on with the next set of issues. Malangthon 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Testimony Refuting Rationale for Deletion
This was posted on the Dogme ELT discussion page:
Author of the original article
:Just for the record, I am the author of the original Dogme ELT entry that was removed in November. The susbequent entry had nothing to do with me, was not sanctioned by me, and bore only a notional resemblance to my own article (in that it was about the same topic) but was otherwise completely different: its rapid deletion - on the grounds that it was an attempt to re-submit a previously rejected entry - seems hardly justified. ScottThornbury 13:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ScottThornbury
:See WP:Wikilawyering. Read WP:Wikilawyering. Come back with something resembling an actual argument. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
:This simply demonstrates User Calton's failure to stick to the original rationale for deletion. The deletion was categorically for reposting a deleted article. The writer of the first article has stated, without equivocation, that the stub deleted was NOT, I repeat, NOT the original article. The sole reason for deletion is thereby refuted and that categorically. Malangthon 01:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This is or should be, the end of it and the article left in peace. Malangthon 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. If it were undeleted on the technicality that the text is not the same, it would be promptly AfDed again, and redeleted for still having no reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't follow process for the sake of having it followed. -Amark moo! 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REBUTTAL

Again, another of those voting for deletion state that in fact the reason for deletion is not the real reason. It was deleted for reposting deleted text. This is very simple, undelete and leave it be.

This is process for the sake of serving the mission of Wikipedia. The assertion that this is about process for the sake of process is misdirection. We have here a glimpse into the mind of User:Amarkov and not the substance of this discussion. Malangthon 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring me, and I don't like it. It's not going to be let alone if it's undeleted, it's going to be run through an entirely pointless AfD discussion which will reach the result that there are still no sources. -Amark moo! 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just so clear. It is now a personal attack: it has been internalised and rendered by at least one person to a very unprofessional level. It is simply a threat of continued attempts to delete a stub which is in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Undeleted, this stub can continue to be developed over time into an article as would normally happen to a stub in compliance with Wikipedia policies. This is how articles begin and User:Amarkov has stated here that that will not be allowed to happen. Is there a clearer proof that this deletion is supported by someone that is way outside the Pale? Malangthon 02:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion beneath all the puffery, this is really just yet another of the thousands of unremarkable web-forum article deletions that happen all the time. In this case the forum is actually a Yahoo group with 2 messages in the past 7 days. The "accidental" ArbCom request (which was apparently sticken without even being voted upon) makes it a little bit tougher than usual to assume good faith, but otherwise it's just more of the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much of this forum discussion and its significance are not limited to the site itself? The assertion marks the writer as unbelievably naive for some who professes to have an informed opinion in this matter. I have been on the web since the early 90s and these are now the norm for discussion amongst groups of professionals in almost every field. How many entries does it take before a entity like H-Net which publishes citable reviews would make it to the pages of Wikipedia? Amazing. Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be civil and assume good faith.

This is the version deleted by AFD. This is the version deleted under the speedy deletion criteria for recreation of deleted material. The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.

The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.

Reading the AFD, the reason for deletion was a lack of independently published reliable sources primarily about the group. So the question is whether the new article addresses this reason for deletion. The sources offered in the new article are 1) the forum itself (obviously not independent), 2) a 2004 item in the Guardian that mentions the educational theory but not the group (so is totally useless for an article on the forum) 3) a forum at the Guardian (obviously not meeting our standards for a reliable source), and 4) the personal writings of a single teacher on a site published by the BBC and British council that does not claim any authorship or fact checking of the articles by teachers (see the about page), so it also does not meet our standards for a reliable source. There is no source that addresses the concerns of the AFD about a lack of good sources. With no good source for our notability standards (WP:WEB as a forum), this doesn't have as much chance of surviving another AFD as a naturally occurring snowball being found underground in liquid magma, so there is no reason to list it at AFD. The discovery of multiple sources that are independent and meet our standards for reliable sources would give an AFD a chance, so might lead me to change my opinion to relisting. I have no opinion on whether an article on the educational theory would be possible, but it is clear these are not the sources to support such an article. GRBerry 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:GRBerry, 21:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC) REBUTTAL Re: "I agree that this is a fairly simple case, complicated by the requestor's long-winded and contentious posts. The requestor needs to be civil and assume good faith.

This name calling and deprecation is civil and in good faith? Yea right. Hoist on thine own.

Re: “The test there is "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, that clearly does not adress the reasons for deletion." There was an AFD discussion, so one piece of the criteria is met. Who the author is is not relevant to the speedy deleetion rule.”

Point One: Substantially different –how substantial? An analogy if you will.

Act One: Someone one writes an article about a Martian who comes to earth and poses extraordinary theories in relativity and quantum mechanics —and oh by the way his name is Albert Einstein. It gets deleted;

Act Two: Next there is a legitimate article on Albert Einstein and we have about 95% of the same content and the same title and . . . oh well. This line of reasoning is stating clearly that if a topic is dealt with in a manner that is unacceptable and then deleted that the topic is forever out of bounds. You see how this could create problems. If not please recuse yourself.

Point Two:

The original article deleted in 2006 was, amongst other things, deleted because the founder of the group had written it and it was considered self-promoting. This assertion of irrelevance in the matter of authorship displays a marked lack of familiarity with the case. Since it is clearly the case that this is not self-promoting by a vested interest, this stub has now rendered an original deletion rationale moot.

“The deleted version said it was about a "loose collective of teachers" who "set up a web-based discussion list", the new version says it is about a "forum for teachers". Either way, it is the same topic that is being discussed, and trying to differentiate on this basis would be wikilawyering at its worst. So the first piece of the criteria is met.”

ONE: Make the argument. If you want to refer to policy, then do it here and not make broad sweeping strokes by referring obtusely to other Wikipedia documents on the web.

TWO: An established forum in cyberspace is now reason for deletion—where is that written in policy

THREE: A loose collection—what is that? A established forum to discuss philosophy and practice in a recognised field by professionals is a whole new level. If you see a similarity there you really have to want it.

With regard to the section beginning, "The sources offered in the new article are"

1. Irrelevant. This is obviously crucial in actually establishing the EXISTENCE of the forum.
2. Incorrect & Contradictory (at the same time). This establishes the interest and the significance of the topic of the stub as published in a reliable source. Important Point: This statement is a contradiction with other assertions here saying this should be deleted because it had no interest (I believe one word used was 'popularity'). The reasons given for deletion are in conflict.
3. The Guardian does not meet the criteria for a reliable source? The vote for deletion is now saying the Guardian is what?
4. -

• (A) We are now eliminating all personal writing from the list of eligible sources? Where in the policy is that written? All autobigraphies are personal. How many articles here cite autobiographies? What about biographies with the endorsement of the subject? Are those citations now to be removed and their associated articles judged on 'Keep' or 'Delete' accordingly? How many noted authors are cited here from articles in the media--op ed pieces are now for the chop?
• (B)Who do writers have to be to qualify as a source? We have a rating scale?
• (C)British Council or, say, Oxford faculty? CNN or BBC? We are now engaged in a disparagement of well known and respected governmental agencies in the UK--this is support for deletion? The voter does not consider the British Council or the BBC to be reliable sources? How many sources here in Wikipedia are from media but WITHOUT by-lines? This well-regarded media source has published an essay WITH a by-line. This is Wikipedia policy--saying the BBC and The British Council are not legitimate fora for opinions by professionals writing about issues in their field of endeavour?

SUMMARY:

• The arguments are not serving the purpose of the review and they are often based on vague references to other web pages here in Wikipedia--e.g. referring to an opponent's argumentation as 'Wikilawyering'. Make the argument from the source if you can--Your opponent is not required to make your argument for you, for Pete's sake. And do try and stay on topic. Little of this last posting is on topic with regard to the deletion under review.
• If it is a question of votes, then any Republican can get his party members to join and vote to delete all reference to Clinton, any politician in Turkey could get as many of his compatriots to join Wikipedia and vote to delete all references to the Armenian massacres and any right-winger in Japan could do the same for the Nanking Massacre--hell for WWII.

Malangthon 04:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevance of Dogme ELT

An issue, evidently, for the first article, deleted in 2006, and one posted here in various versions is the significance of the topic. Once a week I do a google and a vivisimo and an alta vista search of the topic and the list grows. I post to applied linguists monthly to get an idea about what changes are taking place in the field and Dogme is noted from time to time--out of the vast number of ideas out there: It merits note by professionals in the field. Dogme ELT is now being discussed and written about in language and education sources and publications on an increasingly wider international scale and this is significant. The ELT field has a major impact worldwide. When you consider that English is not just a language but an international language that is increasingly used in commerce, government & international relations and transportation (e.g. Japanese airline pilots speak English to Pakistani traffic controllers), the importance of this field of endeavour becomes clear. As I stated before, the ELT field also accomodates a massive industry for commercial interests (e.g. major publishers and universities) which philosophies like Dogme ELT has already effected (e.g. Edlearn Consortium, a joint venture of Wash. State U. & City University-Seattle is now charging some 2,500 Euros for a business course it teaches in English in Bulgaria--that is about twice the yearly salary of an ELT teacher in Bulgaria). The topic under discussion will have a signficant effect on the associated industries since it is advocating a mover counter to the glut of materials that ELT teachers deal with. Testing, especially testing English competence, is a very large industry that Dogme ELT may impact to increasing degrees (e.g. Edlearn Consortium have 'graciously' eliminated the TOEFL requirement). The interest in Dogme ELT is definitely there and its signficance is also being marked and discussed.

On the other hand, articles about pumpkin-headed deer are hardly of global signficance nor a topic impacting billion dollar industries although I certainly welcome the reading of trivial and slightly bizzare phenomena. Even though such articles are usually the domain of "UrbanMyth.com", I have no doubt that it fits Wikipedia's mission as does Dogme ELT which is significant on many levels.

• Sources for Dogme ELT

I have been going over the beginnings of many of these articles and note that it has been common here in Wikipedia to start small--sometimes, very small. The Autism article, for instance, was recently a Feature Article and with our efforts may soon be again. However, when it started in 2001 in December, for two weeks it was a single web link. Others then pitched in and the rest is history. The attitude conveyed here in the votes for deletion--and I think it would be instructional to analyse the voters primary work loads here on Wikipedia to reveal what their real emphasis is--is a sharp departure from the evidence of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, informative and collaborative rather than denigrating and combative. Malangthon 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Process of AFD

I note that User GRBerry states on his talk page:

"Despite some appearances to the contrary, AFD is not a vote. It is a discussion, where we try to explain why an article should or should not be deleted. Then a closing admin comes along, and decides, in light of the discussion, whether the article meets Wikipedias policies and guidelines for having an article. Usually, because most AFD contributors are basing their comments on the policies and guidelines, the close looks like it is reading the comments as a vote. But if there is an overriding policy issue raised (a demonstrated copyright violation is the classic example), then policy will be followed. One of the boldest closes that I've seen, but absolutely one that followed policy, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of probability, which was closed as keep in a discussion with two keep opinions, eight delete opinions, and two userfy opinions (which are normally read as delete). "

Malangthon 11:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRBerry also states: I have rescued 6 articles for deletion by improving them, some of them with significant help from other editors. The best possible outcome of an AfD discussion is an improved article. How many have you rescued?"

Malangthon 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]