WritersUA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)(DRV#1)

This article was deleted for failing WP:CORP, based on the fact that the WritersUA company is not mentioned in many significant secondary sources. In the deletion discussion, people mentioned that the company represented a specialized technical niche (help documentation and user assistance documentation), and also mentioned that the only sources found for the material were blogs. I submit the following points for consideration:

1. WritersUA is itself a communications medium through which very notable companies make public announcements about future products (many of which are notable). It is unlikely therefore that other news organizations are going to make note of news which WritersUA helps to produce, especially considering the relatively small and specialized target audience.
2. User assistance and technical documentation is not itself a "sexy" topic, and it is wrong to assume therefore that traditional news media or other regular secondary sources are going to take pains to cover it. That many documentation writers blog about the topic is evidence that the WritersUA conference is important to the discipline.
3. Help documentation itself is used by many people and is very notable, but yet you would be hard pressed to find many secondary sources (with the exception of WritersUA) that discuss the topic. Following that, WritersUA is mentioned in a handful of Wikipedia articles on the topic: Microsoft Help, Microsoft Help 2, Adobe RoboHelp, and Microsoft Compiled Help. These articles are all stubs, which helps to demonstrate that help documentation software is not a popular topic to write about.
4. Due to the nature of the subject, because it is unlikely to be covered by traditional sources, blogs are likely to be a very good indication of the importance of WritersUA. Notice that blogs were dismissed out of hand in the deletion discussion, with the quip "after all it is gathering of tech writers - of course they are going to blog about it". It is precisely because so many tech writers are blogging about it that we know it must be important. It is an important source of information for people of a particular profession, and many blogs on the topic of help documentation mention it.

Notice that WP:CORP does not exclude blogs, but instead allows for "reliable published works in all forms", with several listed exceptions. Notice also that corporate blogs, or technical blogs (or any blogs, for that matter) are not listed here as specific exceptions. WP:RS makes no specific mention of blogs as an unreliable source, only that self-published works may be unreliable. Since the blogs in question are not written by WritersUA, but are written about it, often by notable companies, it is fair to assume that these could be taken as a reliable source for this topic. A final point here is that blogs are increasingly being used as a primary method of information dissemination by large companies and organizations. To dismiss this article because it receives coverage from blogs to the near exclusion of coverage from other news sources is, I believe, a side-step of the spirit of the notability guideline. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation (see my "Revision post" below) Weak keep deleted - WritersUA formerly was known as WinWriters. If you actually looked for reliable source material under WinWriters in addition to reliable source material under WritersUA, you probably would not need to argue against Self-published sources (online and paper) position on blogs. In answer to your post, WritersUA need to get newspapers and other print media interested in them if they want to make the Wikipedia cut. If newspapers, books, and the like are not interested in WritersUA, there is no reason Wikipedia should either. Comment Here is what I found for WritersUA (1) April 10, 2006 Press release, (2) January 3, 2007 Press release, (3) January 7, 2007 Houston Chronicle meeting notice, (4) March 26, 2007 Press release, (5) August 10, 2007 San Diego Union-Tribune, (6) November 13, 2007 Press release], (7) Google books, (8) Google scholar. -- Jreferee t/c 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is what I found for WritersUA (1) March 1997. Volume 16; Issue 3. Computer Shopper. "HTML-based help will overtake WinHelp by late '97." (2) August 26, 1999 Press release, (3) July 17, 2000. Computerworld. Conferences.(Calendar of Events) Page 52. (4) July 24, 2001 Press release, (5) Google books, (6) google scholar. With all the info and given how old the AfD is, there might be enough info to create an article that might survive AfD #2. -- Jreferee t/c 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I specifically omitted the WP:SPS policy, because the blog entries I am talking about do not strictly fall under the category of "self-published". Blogs by organization X discussing (but not necessarily endorsing) organization Y are more reliable because organization X has nothing to gain from the free publicity to Y. Ie, these are not blogs written by WritersUA about WritersUA, but are blogs by other technical professionals about WritersUA. The volume and diversity of such sources should quite fears of undue bias and therefore a lack of reliability. In short, WP:SPS doesn't apply here. --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 00:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think if you specifically omitted SPS policy you made a mistake because it trumps both the CORP and RS guidelines. The blogs would only be acceptable if they meet the SPS list and the injunction above it: "acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not saying yea or nay in this particular case, just offering the suggestion. Marskell (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What i'm concerned with is that this topic may never pass the notability guidelines as they are laid out currently, because of the specialization of the topic and the self-referential nature of the discipline. Regardless of the size and importance of this organization (and I would venture to say that for a certain group of people it is very important), I don't foresee this ever being prominantly listed in many secondary sources. It is the nature of the discipline, not a failure of the WritersUA PR team, or an indication of the non-notability of the topic. There are some references as JReferee has pointed out above, and I would expect that number to increase (albeit slowly) over time as well. Also, in the spirit of the notability guideline, this topic is notable even if it can't be proven conclusively through the traditional methods (i.e. reliable secondary sources, etc). --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard might be a good place to discuss the blog issue specific to this topic. -- Jreferee t/c 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Revision post" - I changed my position to permit recreation. With Google books and the other links I provided above, I think there is enough new material to at least generate a mixed keep/delete AfD. It would be much better to have on hand an AfD that evaluated the above source material rather than the present AfD. Significantly improving the reasoning behind an AfD seems to be progress, even if the outcome of AfD#1 and AfD#2 are delete. A significantly improved reasoning is much easier to apply such as through CSD G4 and at DRV, for example. Eventually, WritersUA will make it into Wikipedia. I think I could scrape together a source article that might survive AfD. I am impressed with Whiteknight's DRV request and his/her ability to split hairs.[1] I think Whiteknight is capable of squeezing the reliable source material for all it's juice in a way that might not cross the line into using non reliable source material. DGG's post below also has influenced me. I think allowing recreation will only improve Wikipedia. -- Jreferee t/c 15:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process problems in the AFD discussion or in the previous DRV discussion. As a side note, blogs do not meet my understanding of reliable sources and are insufficient sources on which to base a stand-alone article. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. If the topic is not "sexy" enough for anyone to write the necessary secondary sources, there is nothing we can use as a basis. That may be unfortunate but it's not our problem to solve. We can't make something notable that nobody else cares about. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the first items in the Google Scholar result are items in IEEE MICRO, which is NOT a blog, but the major professional magazine. If they think the company is important enough to discuss it's financial prospects, it's notable. Apart from the blogs, that's sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. The general blog issue can be discussed elsewhere. DGG (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you are talking about these hits? If so, I must respectfully disagree. They are passing mention at best, mostly made in the context of a single conference held in 2005. I'm not finding anything primarily discussing the organization. If you're looking somewhere else, would you mind showing your sources? Thanks. Rossami (talk)

File:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

This image was removed without discussion from the Cillian Murphy article as an invalidly used non-free image, and was later deleted by an admin, again without any additional input from others, as a replaceqable fair use image, despite the fact that the article had only within the past two weeks achieved FA status with the image in it. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) deleted the image as "replaceable fair use image", but I don't think it was tagged as such, nor was the uploader (or others) given an adequate opportunity to discuss it either on the IDP itself, or at an WP:IfD. Uploaded after 2006-07-13, WP:CSD#i7 requires notification of the uploader to then delete within 48 hours; as far as I can ascertain, Melty girl (talk · contribs) was not notified of such. Full disclosure: I ultimately support the deletion decision (and reasoning behind it), but I feel I disagree with the fashion in which it was implemented. See Image talk:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg#Fair use rationale was already ratified by multiple reviews.

  The appears to be something technically wrong with the instigation of this DRV, as the header refers to an AfD redlink, and the "talk" link doesn't work. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The DRV nomination template calls ((la)). This needs to be switched by hand to ((li)) or another equivalent template when a non-article is nominated. The regulars have decided it is easier to do it by hand than to write very complicated template code to figure out which sub-template to actually use. I've updated. GRBerry (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The film is only tangentially mentioned in the article so this clearly is not an image that details a particularly important element of the article. As such its inconceivable that this can be justifiably used on a non-free licence in this way. Fair use is for illustrating the subject - that would be the film not the actor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- The image clearly satisfied WP:FU as a screenshot of low resolution that was being used to provide critical commentary regarding a key performance of C. Murphy. It had a clearly written fair use rationale, which together with other FU images, was thoroughly reviewed during the WP:FA process and had been rightfully found to be appropriate. The deletion was without any discussion or explanation. The user who had tagged the image with ((fairusereview)) did not open any discussion at WP:FUR, and when asked to provide an precise statement as to how the image violates WP:FU, his explanation was "i find the rationale silly". The actions and behaviors aforementioned violate WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:FU and I recommend the remedying of this situation by overturning this deletion and restoring the image. --Kudret abi^Talk 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical commentry of a film that is not discussed in detail in the article. Please... Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own deletion per WP:NFC. It has been our consistent policy for at least the past several months that images of living actors, musicians and other performers cannot be used to illustrate their biographical articles. In that context, they are replaceable. The issue whether these images satisfied NFC was not discussed at FAR. (FAR will often review whether there are too many non-free images, assuming that they are valid under NFC.) -- But|seriously|folks  22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading WP:CSD#i7, am I misinterpreting the requirement to notify the uploader 48-hours prior to deletion? I'm not even sure if the image was tagged with ((replaceable fair use)) or ((dfu)) so as to notify anybody of a pending deletion possibility. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an out-of-process deletion. Speedy deletions in general are only for obvious, uncontroversial cases. In cases like this there was clearly a consensus as of very recently that the image was appropriate under our non-free content policy. Deference should clearly be given to decisions already made on featured articles. Inasmuch as the entire issue is a disagreement as to the application of a relatively non-urgent policy like NFCC and there is no argument at all that the use is illegal, we should not disrupt the project by taking images out of featured articles. A single administrator (even a respected, thoughtful administrator like Butseriouslyfolks) should not delete images it at whim. Arguments that the image is deletable should be discounted - this is not the place to make such arguments. The deletion did not follow procedure and the procedure cannot be rehabilitated here. If any still feel the image should be deleted the thing to do is to list it at WP:IFD. Wikidemo (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Images of living celebrities taken from their performances are fair use violations. The image can be used to illustrate an article about the program or the character, but not about the actor, unless there is extensive discussion in the actor's article about their appearance as the character. Corvus cornix (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply an incorrect statement of policy. Nowhere does the non-free use policy or guideline page say that; quite the opposite. An argument to change the policy should apply, if anywhere, on the policy or guideline page, but should not in an image deletion review. Wikidemo (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the part of the non-free use page which specifically says Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. ? Corvus cornix (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section you quoted contradicts your first statement, yes. But you also misconstrue what the examples says as well as the role of the examples in the guideline. The example does not stand for the proposition that a screen shot cannot be used in an article about an actor. Commentary on an actor performing a role is discussion of the cinema and television. Moreover the individual examples listed are incomplete, not exhaustive. It says screenshots may be used for certain purposes. It does not say they cannot be used for other purposes too.Wikidemo (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a contradiction, it's an exception. Commentary on an actor performing a role is not the sole criterion. It must be more than just "he played this character". I don't see anything in the article as it now stands which is "critical commentary and discussion", just that he was in it. Corvus cornix_talk 17:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As an out of process deletion. The reason for deletion given in the deletion log is "replaceable fair use image", implying that the image was used to identify Cillian Murphy. The image was not used to identify this person, the free Image:Cillianmurphy.jpg does that. This image was deleted after three film screenshots were taken out of Cillian Murphy on the grounds that no screenshots can be used in any actors' article [2] [3] [4], even if there is extensive discussion about the film in the actor's article. This reasoning has been greeted with surprise and disagreed with on Talk:Cillian Murphy and WT:NONFREE, showing that the policy has not yet reached consensus and needs further discussion and clarification. Bláthnaid 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Corvus comix and Spartaz. Failed to comply with NFCC, and indeed the other two non-free images currently do not meet those criteria either. Undeleting the image so we can delete again after some arbitrary period of time has passed seems, to be charitable, misguided. Can anyone in favour of overturning this deletion explain in detail how the use of these images complies with NFCC 8 and 10? Absent such an explanation, there is no choice but to endorse the deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any problems with NFCC #10 are fixable. As for #8, the argument is that a limited amount of screenshots do significantly increase readers' understanding of an actor's biography. This is, however, a discussion best suited to WT:NFCC. This deletion should be overturned because it was deleted while people were discussing its suitability for the article. Now, non-administrators cannot fully take part in the discussion. (For example here, where an editor thinks that there were originally just two nonfree images in the article.) Also, the image was deleted so quickly User:Melty girl and other interested parties were not given the time to make their case for this image's retention. Maybe they could have expanded the relevant part of the article, or found a better image. Bláthnaid 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion - The deleted image Image:Cmurphy-discopigs.jpg essentially is a redundant copy of Image:Cillian-as-pig.jpg. Speedy delete under CSD I1 redundant copy applies. -- Jreferee t/c 01:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an out-of-process deletion per Wikidemo and Kudret above. --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as an admin overreach without review and even while a discussion was underway at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content on the article's talk page and most people were in support of keeping the image. --Melty girl (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was a reasonable ongoing discussion of the copyright question, and no admin has the right to substitute his own opinion on the matter. Speedy for copyvio is for obvious, not good-faith contested. DGG (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It has just come to my attention that this image is part of a larger problem concerning the use of fair use images in the Cillian Murphy article, which somehow managed to get through Featured Article Review without a single person noticing that three of the image were in violation of Wikipedia's Fair Use image policy. There is now a disruptive edit war going on as to whether or not the existing images which have not yet been deleted should stay in the article. User:Wikidemo and User:Melty girl argue that the images are allowed because the article contains "critical commentary' about them, whereas I see absolutely no critical commentary about the images, and therefore feel that none of the fair use images should be allowed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one edit warring, removing two different photos from the one being discussed here, even though review and discussion is still underway and no clear consensus exists. My one revert of you did argue that critical commentary exists in the article regarding those two other images (I think The New York Times, The New Yorker, The San Francisco Chronicle etc. certainly qualify), but it also requested that you wait until review has taken place before removing images from the article, since there is ample discussion but no consensus yet, and reviews of the images have not taken place. Additionally, you sought to take the whole article to FAR over these three images, but were rebuffed. You are the one who has been behaving in a disruptive manner. Please let the process work itself out before taking action over something clearly controversial. --Melty girl (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the images one time, before I knew there was a general discussion about how any fair use image can be used for any specious purpose, is hardly edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read an interesting passage at the WP article on Fair use:

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:

[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....

In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.

I see the bolded phrase to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: Firstly, this deletion was improperly done no matter whether you agree with, or disagree with, the image use or not. Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs) knew full well that a serious discussion was taking place (he was part of it) AND that he was opposed to the view that the fair-use images are still allowed. Oh, and his deletion claimed that the image was a "replaceable fair use image", but with what? Another fair-use image because a PD of the actor would not show him portraying a role in a movie.

• Comment The implications of this action being upheld are very serious indeed and a real discussion must take place about fair-use images in actor article, and possibly about fair-use in general. It seems that Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) is also against fair-use in general, as he states this is a larger problem, and therefore supports this specific deletion as well as the deletion of all the other fair-use images that are in the Cillian Murphy article which he is now promoting by putting the Cillian Murphy article up for fair-use review at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Cillian_Murphy even while this discussion is taking place - that is way to bold for me. I think that before deleting any more fair-use images we need to discuss fair-use policy in essence at WP:RFC/POLICIES because there are apparently quite a few editors who disagree with the current policy and take action, or support action taken, based on the opposing views rather than on the policy. ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted for non-notability. I suggest the page be undeleted and replaced with the contents of User:Shritwod/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi_(draft). This page contains, to date, 27 secondary independent citations and many primary citations. According to WP:ATA, the inclusion of a subject in secondary sources is a primary indicator of notability and trumps the opinions of individual editors. The article does need to be cleaned up and original research deleted, but the reasons for deletion due to non-notability are gone. There may have been the appearance of consensus originally, but those weighing in included employees of the subject and the subject himself. SaltyDawg (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure what's best here. I will note that the article was well-sourced when it was listed for deletion, and more sources were added throughout the process, while the delete comments continued to pile up. I think weak keep deleted: this is not the opinion of one or two editors, there seems to be a strong feeling from the community that this topic is inappropriate, despite the existence of sources. No topic can be included without sources, but not every sourceable topic must be included, especially if consensus is against it. Mangojuice^talk 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:ATA, "Those working at newspapers, magazines, journals and other secondary sources have to make sure that a subject is notable before they write a piece on it, because if they do not, no-one will read it, their employer will lose money, and they will get fired. So we can rely on their judgement of "how big is big" - but we cannot rely on ours."

To quote WP:Notability,"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic....A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

If notability is met (clearly it has here) then the topic is suitable. I believe that 27 independent sources is more significant coverage than many Wikipedia entries which would not be deleted. This person has been shown by independent secondary sources to be the principal behind some of the largest scams in teh United States. As a topic he worthy of an encyclopedic entry.--SaltyDawg (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - The draft still is highly POV. The lead paragraph starts out misusing the alternate names for the article to indict El-Difrawi through "also know as" innuendo, then label's his entire life "controversial", and then calls his model scouting company a scam without any conclusion by a court of the same - all within the first sentence! That is not an appropriate approach to a Wikipedia article, even for people widely disdained or disdained by those preparing the Wikipedia article. The third sentence in the lead paragraph lists an unproven accusation and then, zamo, right into a criminal conviction. The article then goes into his criminal history instead of his biographical history, establishes a guilt by association to accused pedophiler Lou Pearlman, then goes into detail about El-Difrawi's significant current activities, implying that everyone needs to watch out for these current activities because El-Difrawi is a bad guy. It is written in a way that is more of a road map of where those who oppose El-Difrawi can locate him rather than an encyclopedic conveyance of information. The article segregates the chronological history of El-Difrawi in a way that increases the negative impression the article conveys. The draft article isn't a biography. It seems more of a WP:BLP, POV hit piece on El-Difrawi. See WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. The draft article has been worked on for the past month and a half[5] and I don't think it is there. -- Jreferee t/c 17:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be reading different articles. The lead paragraph does nothing to indict El-Difrawi by displaying his aliases, merely by showing that he is known by alternate names - period. It says nothing about what those names are used for. This is not misuse, other articles in Wikipedia list aliases and nicknames. I find absolutley zero innuendo, and there are citations for the person's aliases. the article says he is a controversial businessman - it doesn't label his entire life as controversial as you state. What's published of his biographical information is referenced here before any criminal convictions. I can point that out to you if you are still unable to see it. It is a small section because nobody has published a biography of this guy. The current activities are what they are there is no implication whatsoever, if you INFER that, because the man is a criminal that you should stay away - so be it. This person is a career criminal and scammer, to date there are no publications listing legitimate businesses this person has been involved in if there are indeed any.

Quoting NPOV, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." It is a fact that the modeling business was branded a scam by a government agancy and numerous media outles. This is a precise fact that the article included.

Please read this: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (emphasis added) this article fairly represents all reliable sources which have been found and proper weight has been given to each of those. I cannot find one single independent source that lists legitimate business activities for El-Difrawi, or paints his early biography, or has any other information about him. The majority (read as 100%) of published reliable sources about this person are focused on his criminal activity. You have to go to primary sources for the other scraps of biographical information that is here.

Again from NPOV: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." - There are no contradictory relevant sources, at least that I have found. If I can find any, they will certainly be immediately included here. Or feel free to make constructive edits yourself.

• comment Please try again, and include only the most important material, and only that which is documented in truly reliable sources. Possibly an adequate article can be written, but the amount of detail is totally inappropriate for and encyclopedia. The excessive detail amounts to a personal attack beyond what would be justified here.DGG (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I endorse my original closure of the discussion as accurate, this new article is not encyclopedic in tone. As DGG mentions, the level of detail is far, far too high and amounts to a personal attack. A lot of this article relies of synethesis of original sources, like court documents and articles, which have no indication that these incidents have any notability — this concern was brought up in the AfD and never addressed. However, from some of the sources provided I think you can write a good article about this subject; however, this is not it. --Haemo (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"This article is either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both. [...][6]

• Keep deleted. The quote on that Arbcom page would make a reasonable source to back up the use of the term "Capture bonding" at Stockholm syndrome, since it describes the two as different names for the same phenomenon. This doesn't establish notability for capture bonding as a separate topic. (IMO it would be okay to create a redirect, though.) Mangojuice^talk 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The article in Mankind Quarterly is by none other than Keith Henson. This doesn't give me any confidence that anybody except Keith Henson uses this term. The self-promotion argument still applies here. But the more important point is that this is a term coined by Keith Henson, that no one uses but Keith Henson. By the way, Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, but it doesn't have a very good reputation due to its position on race and intelligence; it doesn't strike me as the kind of source we want to use for Wikipedia articles, especially if it's going to be the main source for an article. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am amused by your political correctness. Keith Henson (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amused or not, it's indisputable that Mankind Quarterly is held in very low regard by a great number of academics. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a time when a great number of academics thought bleeding was a cure for a lot of illness. Were they right? Read this http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/ and tell me if the academics you are talking about are right. Keith Henson (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: That is a very common comment in Wikipedia's deletion discussions and it is utterly irrelevant. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the verified writings of others. To do anything else falls afoul of the prohibition against original research. If we had been writing Wikipedia back when established consensus of the informed and educated academics was that bleeding worked, that's exactly what the encyclopedia would have said. Right or wrong gets proven outside Wikipedia. Once the scientific consensus changes, then it has a place in the encyclopedia - not before. Rossami (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - The topic is covered by Stockholm syndrome. I only found the term being used in Henson, H Keith. (July2006) Mankind Quarterly Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War. Google books brings in a few hits; Google scholar does not. In any event, captivity bonding seems more descriptive than capture bonding since it is not the seizure of the person that causes the bonding but the confinement. I don't see the term "capture bonding" being widely used in the future. I don't have a problem with Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War. being used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles within reason. However, it doesn't provide enought reliable source material to sipport an article on capture bonding. If you still think there is enough reliable source material for the capture bonding, draft an article using that relaible source material and present that draft to DRV for review. -- Jreferee t/c 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep me from having to start from scratch, how about temporarily undeleting the article or sending me the last versions before Sadi and Publicola edited the article. Email is ok, hkhenson@rogers.com Post the new draft here? Keith Henson (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

another admin how now moved it to User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding. DGG (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted Peer review, shmeer review. An article authored by Henson is evidently not an independent source. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional applications of real materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD | DRV#1)

Grounds for deleting look rather weak. Restore? Its AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - The October 12, 2007 DRV addressed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials. -- Jreferee t/c 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own closure per the reasons I gave there. The keep arguments were basically WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITJUSTNEEDSCLEANUP. Deletion reasons, on the other hand, included points like WP:NOR and WP:V. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Looks rather "no consensus" to me, with leanings toward keeping, actually. Even the nomination leaned that way (unintentionally, I would presume), since: if the information is worth merging, it could be argued that such information could/should be listed in a central list. It's one of the specific uses of lists... The deletion concerns seemed to be over whether this was trivia or whether the list inclusion criteria was too broad (which was clarified, and even caused one commenter to change from delete to weak delete). As for trivia, in looking over the list, it would appear to need some pruning, but I think this is like any other list of "fictional things" (as was also noted in the discussion). - jc37 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn not much different to listing fictional characters. DollyD (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The delete arguments were based on policy while the keeps were not. Whispering 13:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I almost closed this one as delete myself last month, but decided I didn't want to deal with the whole web of related AFDs. For my read of the discussion, the sound arguments for deletion are those based in WP:FICT, as nobody demonstrated any secondary sources on the topic of the list (if we had a solid article on the topic of the list, we might or might not be able to defend a list), WP:NOR, and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. That each item in the list may in theory be sourcable is nice - but to truly source it, we'd need to source 1) the name & use in the work of fiction, 2) the name & use in reality, 3) that the real material existed before the work of fiction was authored, and 4) that the authors actually meant the real material and didn't just apply a random name generating algorithm. If all of those were sourced, stringing them together to reach the conclusion the article needs would violate the WP:SYN section of WP:NOR. Nobody in the AFD presented a single secondary source that would support the inclusion of any items in the list. One supposed search was purely a set of example single panels from comics with no discussion, one mentioned no materials. GRBerry (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Ah, that is why it is familiar and where I concluded on this previously. Thanks Sasha. GRBerry (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good closing. AFDs aren't headcounts. And for the record, this was at DRV before. Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The WP:OR/WP:N concern here is a killer, and was not addressed at all in any of the keep arguments. Plus, enough already; the AfD was delete and was endorsed at the prior DRV that Sasha points out. Mangojuice^talk 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer clearly explained his/her reasoning and made the decision in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. If/when this topic becomes the subject of independent analysis and research (in other words, when we have secondary sources to work from, not merely compilations of primary sources), the article can be considered for undeletion. By the way, decisions like this are precisely why we don't use voting at Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In looking over the comments above, I'm wondering who has said anything about counting heads? And pointing at policy doesn't mean that such policy applies, any more than listing a source in a discussion automatically means that the source applies. - jc37 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Impossibly broad, virtually unsourceable. Wrong Wiki, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Nothing new presented over the consensus at DRV#1. -- Jreferee t/c 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was no consensus at the AfD, and it should have been so closed. Incorrect use of admin discretion, and that it was supported at an earlier DRV is another mistake that ought to be corrected. Given that opinion here seems--however mistaken-- so firmly against the article, it might be most practical to try to recreate some of it in a new and better manner in user space. DGG (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Query: Do you want me to temporarily undelete Fictional applications of real materials so those of you who are not admins can see it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem necessary, anyway DRV is about whether the process has been followed and AFD operated correctly, not a chance to get a second (or in this case third) bite of the cherry to get the article kept. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn there was indeed no consensus at the AfD. Closing should not be based on whether an administrator is personally convinced by the arguments, but by whether the arguments are representative of, or would be convincing to, a wider Wikipedia consensus. No evidence for this was shown. It is claimed that the delete arguments were "based in policy" but only one policy was even mentioned in the AfD (original research) and it was incorrectly applied—the nominator said "Entirely original research (from primary sources)" but the actual policy specifically allows "descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source" and no argument was made that any "claims" about primary sources in this article were anything but descriptive. The other arguments to delete, essentially "trivia" and "too broad" (or "potentially infinite") were not based in policy at all and were simply individual opinions no more representative of consensus than any other. Given the lack of a true policy-based reason to delete, and the lack of consensus to delete, the close should have been "keep" or at least "no consensus"—even if none of the keeps were based in policy. DHowell (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The delete arguments were more in line with policy than the keep arguments. It is not a head count. 1 != 2 07:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would seem to me to be a reason to overturn...? Stifle (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I typed it wrong this first time, I have repaired my statement. Thanks. 1 != 2 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "essentially "trivia"": Often trivialness is relative. E.g. I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft and I change channels or turn the page over; but football is important to many people. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

similarly, i would be perfectly happy with a WP with no information about individual UK railroad locomotives, professional wrestlers, members of State legislatures, porn stars, and dozens of other topics which I regard as intrinsically trivial. I dont attempt to remove them. DGG (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Worth noting that the article isn't salted and there's nothing stopping people from recreating a different article which cites sources appropriately, irrespective of the outcome of this. That should not be G4ed. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Trivia gives some good guidance. "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. ... A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." If the list article can be recreated in a way that makes it a selectively populated list with a narrow theme, that would help overcome CSD G4 as well. -- Jreferee t/c 14:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - admin made a good call, in line with appropriate policy and procedure. Nothing new here since the last DRV a month ago. Otto4711 (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]