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

Notable Amyyaley (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I would like this article undeleted. It is about a significant patent in the software industry and the developer is a leader in the Open Source community. Amyyaley (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at afd. Has at least some semblence of notability based on cache. Has sources. Editorofthewiki 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as actioned - this has now been userfied to User:Amyyaley/OC Systems to enable the nominator to work on it. BlueValour (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything about the article itself except that he was a junior hockey player. I only found out about it on my talk page due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination), and judging on the afd it seems that it was a no concensus/default keep. Oh, and he also scored the gold medal winning goal at the 2008 WJHC's. Editorofthewiki 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Objection (as closing administrator) A discussion was not held with me prior to this DELREV being submitted. This is in violation of the instructions provided at the top of this page. Although overwhelming consensus on the issue is that such a discussion does need to happen, we never do anything about it; instead we just waste process time and drag unwilling administrators through a public attempt at rebukement, when a simple chat would do quite nicely. Therefore since this happens to me so often, I will be a trendsetter and refuse to participate in this DELREV and request that it be Speedy Closed as out-of-process. Failing that, you are all on your own on this one. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool down, I alerted you on your talk page. I simply want concensus to decide this article's fate. Editorofthewiki 21:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think his point is however, that you are supposed to discuss with him his reason for having closed the afd and if you two couldn't come to an agreement that is when you are supposed to post it for deletion review. -Djsasso (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as out of process. Submitter did not assume good faith in discussing with the closing admin but instead came here first which is clearly out of process. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I at least alerted him on his talk page. I want concensus, not speedily closing for "out of process". Editorofthewiki 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When the requirement to make an attempt to discuss closures with the admin before bringing them to Deletion Review was added back in November last year, most contributors, (as shown at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Contacting the closing/deleting admin), were against closing deletion reviews just because they did not discuss it with the closing admin. This would not seem to be what was intended when the wording was introduced. Davewild (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good, but the discusion at the AfD was clearly for deletion, not keeping this particular article. No attempt was made to discuss this with the closing admin. Whether or not that is technically required is moot. It is a good faith gesture in the least. No attempt was made. The closer, Jerry, has more than ample experience closing AfDs and made, IMHO, the right call according to the discussion available to him. I still endorse deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that, as an inclusionist, this was a bit of a no concensus deal. I alerted Jerry on his talk page in IMHO, that was nice enough. Editorofthewiki 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear concensus in that afd for a delete. I am not sure where you see there is no concensus. Remember afd is not a vote. So it is not about pure numbers. Secondly its not about being nice enough. When you bring a report here you are accusing an admin of not doing their job properly, and if you did not discuss the reasoning with the admin then it is pretty harsh. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told the admin at his talk page about this. I can understand where Jerry came from with a delete but I think it was a stronger keep/no concensus. Please ignore the above style rubbish. Editorofthewiki 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be getting it, Editorofthewiki. Notifying someone of this discussion, after you've listed it, is so obviously not the same thing as trying to resolve the issue before bringing it here, as is asked of you Quite Clearly in the instructions above as a contestor of a deletion. Stop saying that you "told" him. Completely Irrelevant. And completely out of process. Why are you having such trouble understanding this? AfD closers deal with dozens, if not hundreds of these per week. It is constantly backlogged. For you to come in here and say, well I told him about this DR, that was nice enough, is really just a completely bad faith thing to say. What would've been the harm to go to Jerry's talkpage and say "Gee, I'm having trouble with one of your closes. Here's what I think, what do you think?" My recommendation for you is to make an immediate apology to Jerry. (Here's a link in case you couldn't find his talkpage before. Sheesh, Editorofthewiki. You've been here long enough to know this, right? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only arguements at that afd to keep were based on a single goal scored and were huge WP:Recentism arguements days after the event. There was no policy arguements for keeping it, therefore the policy based deletes had a clear concensus. -Djsasso (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Informed", "Told" etc. are not the same as "Discuss" not sure why you are struggling with this concept. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Djsasso's comments. Halischuck meets neither WP:N nor WP:HOCKEY's notability guidelines at this point, as was stated in the AfD. The keeps were based on a single event, based on a WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE argument. Resolute 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I know I said speedy close above, but obviously that hasn't happened. And I've read before the talkpage section provided by Davewild about "out of process" closes. It is my honest opinion that a speedy close would not be the best option for a DELREV listing's outcome that is brought forth by a newbie that doesn't understand wiki-process, per WP:BITE, At the same time, it should be the outcome when a DELREV is brought by an established, experienced editor, when he/she hasn't attempted to talk to the closing admin, under the rule of "You Should Know Better." It is no wonder to me that only a handful of admins of the 1500 are willing to delve into the deletion discussions and speedy decisions. This would have been resolved with a 2 line discussion at User talk:Jerry, but instead, here we are. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 03:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is absolutely ridiculous. Could you please stop saying the same stupid out-of-process thing over and over? I alerted Jerry on his talk page about the DRV, but here we are, insulting me and the article. SORRY I did not talk to Jerry about this because I want everyone to comment on the article's deletion, not my simple small err of conduct, and don't simply respect Jerry more than me simply because I am newer than him. So far only Resolute has done so, and he is the only one here I admire, even if he doesn't share the same viewpoint as me. Keeper76, please stop being, well, mean. Editorofthewiki 15:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel I'm being "mean". I'm not. I'm being direct. It isn't a respect/disrespect issue. Actually, I respect you. You are not a newbie. You have made valid and valuable contributions to the Wiki. Which means I have a higher standard for you than a brand new editor that brings something here without attempting to talk to the closing editor (admin or not). The very first line in the instructional box says this process comes after trying to sort out the deletion discussion with the closing editor. After. You'll notice that I changed my opinion here from speedy close to endorse deletion. That means that I'm over it, but still feel the article should stay deleted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anything about the article itself except that he was a junior hockey player. I only found out about it on my talk page due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination). It was deleleted after a grand total of 5 comments. Editorofthewiki 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You do realize it is extremely common that afd's are close with that few comments. Most people don't comment on afd's that are obvious deletes. Besides this is totally a WP:POINT issue now. Not to mention I have also now noticed you WP:CANVASSing people to the above linked afd. -Djsasso (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't like that, and I'm assuming that he was probably not notable, but I just want to give it a further chance. As for the canvassing, I only alerted User:W.marsh because he was so involved in such articles. It was completely neutral and open. Editorofthewiki 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I guess my only point is you notified the person who was arguing for keep but not the people arguing for delete. That is where it becomes not so neutral. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I'll balance it out with talking to User:Bart Versiek, one of the strongest delete voters. I really don't wan't to be mean, if that's how its coming across. Also, I would wish that you would contribute more to the above. Editorofthewiki 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion While hardly the heartiest debate WP has ever seen, 5 users is plenty to be considered a consensus, especially when it's unanimous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AFD has no quorum --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion See no grounds for overturning deletion, there has never been a minimum number of contributors for an AFD in order for an article to be deleted. Five comments unanimously for delete anyway is pretty good for an article on which no one is arguing for it to be kept. (However four people just saying 'per nom' is not great as AFD is not a vote, but this is no grounds for overturning the deletion) Davewild (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per comments above, and per discussion of the exact same issue at this discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion per Davewild and Starblind. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Mr. Lenahan. "Per nom" is perfectly acceptable when nom sums it up quite nicely and nobody contradicts the noms point. We don't make people type out the same arguments just to prove they actually thought about it; we can just assume that part. All 5 !votes are equally good, and do equate to clear consensus. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Editorofthewiki presents no evidence that deletion was out of process. Resolute 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the debate was unanimous, was open for five days, had enough votes to ensure a consensus (2-3 is OK for me) and all opinions came from established editors. No valid reason to question the decision by the closing admin to delete. Hut 8.5 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as no consensus, but practically none of the Keep votes addressed any policy-based reason why the article should be kept. Keep votes claimed a consensus that such articles should be kept (there obviously isn't, or else there wouldn't be current RFAR on the subject), "It's notable", and "per Arbcom". Despite being an obvious violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, the article cannot be deleted or merged whilst the Episodes and Characters injunction is in place, but should have been relisted. The AfD was also closed by an admin who is active in the Episodes and Characters RFAR and has argued for the retention of such articles, and should therefore have recused themselves. Black Kite 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, can't delete the article because it would violate an ArbCom injunction. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the AFD was relisted twice and so had 3 tries at establishing consensus. The close as No consensus seems quite accurate. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or better yet Reopen we can't do nothing until the injuction is over, but relisting the AFD everytime until the injuction is over is the best idea, as I don't see the need for speedy closing all the AFDs, many of which consensus is obvious, but we can't close because of the injuction. Also the obvious closer bias takes to affect. Secret 15:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD was a mess, no consensus seems like a reasonable close, with nothing to stop someone nominating the article again after the Arbitration case is finished. Relisting AFDs which seem likely to have a concensus to merge or delete emerge seems sensible until the injunction is lifted but an AFD like this seems unlikely to have had a concensus emerge any time soon. Davewild (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, with the current ArbCom injunction in place and the variety of arguments in the AFD, a no consensus closure seems more than reasonable; "no consensus" simply means "do nothing" and leaves no prejudice against relisting, which can occur when the injunction is lifted or expires. --Coredesat 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and reopen the AfD and reinstall Template:Fictwarn. Looked like fairly good consensus was forming for merge. I assume PeaceNT make a good faith call, but I think the outcome was not correct, and may have been incorrectly influenced by the perception that the injunction says we have to keep them all. Those saying endorse because of the injunction are not representing a proper characterization of the injunction, which merely says do not merge, redirect or delete... it never says do not discuss. The ARBCOM has not said to close the AfD's, even though they have been directly asked about them. Our procedure of fictwarn-relisting them has not been discouraged by ARBCOM even though they are aware we are doing it. A lack of negative feedback is positive feedback. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging is an editorial decision that doesn't require an AfD, and a merge can't be carried out now anyway due to the injunction. --Coredesat 06:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is why it should've been relisted, and I'm surprised no-one was commented on the closing admin's COI. Actually, why am I surprised round here these days? Black Kite 00:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid your words may lead to others mistakenly believe I have some serious involvement with the on-going Episodes and Characters arbitration case, which is false. I am not a party in this dispute, only a passerby who is concerned about the issue and makes some comments there (as you should very well know). Thus, I don't see how this suggests any strong COI; if I did, I'd certainly have avoided closing the debate. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you closed it in bad faith; just that anyone who's been involved with the RFAR shouldn't really be closing FICTWARN AfDs, especially where they're not clear. This should be obvious, I would've thought. Black Kite 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is entirely not involved with the dispute, but the process of resolving it, I don't think my closure constituted any illegitimacy. What I meant above is that your characterizing me as "on the inclusionist side" (original wording) and with a COI is misguided, and has apparently induced a user below to mistake me for an "involved party", which does not sit well with me. Sorry for not being clear. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. This should not have been closed with any decision because of the ArbCom injunction. This should be relisted until a decision comes down. I will be looking into PeaceNT's actions to be sure he/she, as an involved party, has been warned of the injunction and therefore, should not be making any decisions related to the deletion, merging, or keeping, of any articles at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not trying to sway your vote, but I'm just making sure you got your facts right. The Arbcom injunction does not prevent the closure of these AfDs, just the acts of deleting, merging, or redirecting characters and episodes articles (when there existed consensus). For the record, I am not an involved party in the case in question (please see the involved party list) or the previous arbcom case (see here). Please judge the closure on its own merit, determining whether there was, or was not, a consensus on any specific actions, rather than degrading the closure by analyzing my other actions, or labelling me with the bias I don't have. Thank you, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my closure as no consensus; there was sufficient communal support for keeping the article, and they do have a point that it does not fail WP:V. At any rate, a merge would still require keeping the article, though the merge voters didn't cite any destination article that this page can be merged into. AfDs without clear consensus are certainly subject to relisting, but given that this one was active for 18 days (quite longer than the formal 5-day period) and was already relisted twice, I don't think reopening the debate would be effective. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure; it's been open for 18 days, what on Earth do we gain by keeping it open longer? Given the mess that was there, I'm happy to go with a No Consensus, and after the Arbitration is over, it could be relisted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If the logs are checked it can be seen that there was a clear majority for Keep. Plus Jawahar Shah's contribution in development of the Software is unquestionable. It is one of the leading softwares used by thousands of Homeopaths the world over LINUSS (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist This became involved in a personal matter about a now-vanished editor, and the close was i think affected by this. I'm not convinced the article should be kept, but there needs to be a fresh discussion. DGG (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist relisting seems a reasonable measure to assure that the perception is that the process was fair and not contaminated by tangent issues. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I believe the process was fair, regardless of the editor's involved in the nomination or the closing of the debate. The article's creator, Linuss, has never created anything outside this article (except an image of Mr. Dr. Shah titled "Picture of self" and this DRV filing). That makes for obvious COI and SPA issues here. No verification of the asserted notability in reliable independent sources has ever been found, and with BLP issues running rampant around this particular subject matter I say leave it deleted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article cannot be justifed by saying that the article creator has submitted only one article so far. There is always going to a first article by everyone. Also; I am sure if any one is even remotly associated with the field of Homeopathic education and softwares for Homeopaths will be aware of Dr. Shah and the software he and his team has created. LINUSS (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough regarding your first article. Point taken. As to your second point, if "anyone even remotly (sic) associated with the field of Homeopathic education and softwares" are aware of Dr. Shah, surely a reliable, secondary source exists somewhere that verifies this? Do you have any that can be linked at this DRV, Linuss? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AFD closures measure policy not headcount. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am forwarding some links for your quick refernce, which will bring to light dr. Shah's role as a teacher and homeopath plus product review of Hompath software. http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopathy_pro/jawahar_shah.html http://www.amishhospital.com/drketanpatel.htm http://lmpotency.com/clients.htm http://www.webhealthcentre.com/altmed/homeopathy/homeopathy_index.asp http://www.minimum.com/reviews/hompath-shah.htm LINUSS (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Ignoring the meaningless flaming that comprises the bottom half of the AFD, I think no consensus was the proper close for this AFD. But I have hopes that, under the right conditions, a consensus can be found. I think regular editors of articles on homeopathy or the fringe theory noticeboard should declare their partisanship in the new AFD - or more importantly that the closing admin should take the time to identify the biases of the contributors and give extra weight to those that are not biased. The sources in or linked to by the deleted article that merit a relisting and further consideration in my mind are: this substantial coverage, the intro here, this zoominfo profile (especially if someone has premium access to see all the references it is using, the ones I can see follow), a web archive version of http://www.phau.org/CTCH/Faculty/Inter_Faculty.htm, this non-independent bio blurb, this bio blurb, this independent bio blurb. That DGG is one of the delete opinions in the AFD but a relist opinion here weighs on me also; it is at least some evidence that consensus may have changed. GRBerry 17:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this article is vulnerable to Original Research as it cannot be verified. There are no sources in the world to stop people from adding their own ideas/opinions to this article.

I believe it's "no consensus" result happened as some of the "keepers" were new users (invariably not knowing about WP:OR, sorry to presume) and that it was listed at the "list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions", inevitably drawing in the Sci-Fi crowd, who perhaps saw the AFD as an attack on the book. But it is for the sake of the book that this article must go, users should not be able to twist the author's message to suit their own Point of View.

Also, the closing admin said "Two "delete" opinions advocate merging, which does not only not require deletion, but actually precludes it due to licencing issues", well I'd be happy for a merge or redirect or anything to get the article away from what it is now. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorce There were no delete comments outside of the original nomination, which itself didn't provide any arguments as to why the article should be deleted. All comments either advocated keeping the article or merging it somewhere else, which is a form of keep. The close was reasonable given those comments and the non-argument nomination. --Farix (Talk) 13:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, ludicrous to do anything else when there were no actual delete votes. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Link above goes to the wrong deletion discussion. Still endorse, but now because the discussion was interpreted correctly by the closer. Merging is an editorial action that can be done by anyone. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, sorry you guys are looking at the recent 2nd AFD aren't you? Not the one from 2 years ago. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Closing admin is right; both arguments for delete suggested merging, and merging precludes deletion. The closure of "no consensus" doesn't need to be overturned for the article to be merged. Perhaps consider proposing a merger? (Note added: this is definitely in reference to hte 2nd AfD.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure seems a resonable interpretation of the AFD, agree with Moonriddengirl on proposing a merge. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. I suspect our ever-tightening standards will lead to this being deleted or merged eventually, but there's no way this essentially-unanimous debate could possibly have closed as "delete". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse keep Actually, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources about this anyways and the consensus was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) To be clear this applies to the second AfD as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong AFD was linked in the request, which seems to have caused great confusion here. I corrected the link. For the sake of clarity for whomever goes to close this, please update your previous comment to state that it applies to the correct AfD. Otherwise earlier references to "keep" closure may be assumed to be irrelevant to this review. Please place new comments below this notice.JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; it's a fairly clear no consensus closure. No need for DRV to overturn anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse' The AfD nominator can use any arguments they have, but it's up to the AfD participants to determine whether they are convinced by that rationale or not. When the community disapprove of deletion, I'd expect the nominator to respect that view, not bring the AfD here representing the keep voters as "new users". As it stands, no consensus is the correct verdict, and does not prohibit future merging or AfD listing. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No need to be rude, another admin advised me to make a review [1] Ryan4314 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, this is not policy enough to warrant ((disputedtag)), but policy enough to be speedy keepable at MFD. Make up your mind. Will ^(talk) 11:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reclose as WP:SNOW. No one other than the nominator voted for delete, and the fact that most voted "speedy keep" suggests that they didn't think that the request even deserved consideration. I think it is safe to conclude that there was no chance of further discussion resulting in deletion. --Itub (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - not a bad close of the MfD - there was a clear consensus to speedy keep, but I don't think enough people had chance to see it. I've got strong feeling about WP:WQA and had I been aware of it, I'd probably have gone towards deletion, and offered a rationale that others may have agreed with. It might be a good idea to let this one run for 5 days, even if there is an overwhelming consensus to keep because I've seen valied concerns with the page expressed on the talk page and this might be a good way to decide if we need it once and for all. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No point relisting to get the same result, that would be wonkery. Reclose as Keep per WP:SNOW. Speedy keep was improper. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist it was closed too early, note I would comment for deletion myself if I saw it which others might also agree with, for me it's just a unneeded fork of WP:AN of people that hold grudges against other editors. Secret 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse The rapid keep was on the perfectly correct basis that it was a major policy change that needed to be discussed elsewhere--and a longer discussion would have given the exact same result. The more people who became aware of it,the stronger the keep feeling would have been. It might have been better called a SNOW than a SPEEDY, but the effect was identical. However,non-admins should not be doing such closings--it tends to make things more complicated, because they often come here. DGG (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. 9 hours 14 hours is not enough time to gauge a consensus. I've seen RfA's have 20 supports before they crashed and burned. This one should have been left open more than 9 hours 14 hours. Who knows what consensus is unless its given the light of day. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 03:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Is this policy? I don't see where it says it is. If it is policy, it needs to be clearly marked as such. As for the MfD, as Keeper76 said, this was not left open nearly long enough (although by my math, it's 14 hours, not 9), the speedy keep was improper (assuming it's not policy), and a snowball keep isn't necessarily a given. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Overturn: Change article name to Selmedica Article is sourced with the most notable references on the issue, BBB as such many others. This list will be ever growing. I feel that there is too much information to fit as a stub in Credit_card_fraud, and thus warrants its own article. As for deletion because of the BLP Violation: I agree. My view was contemplating whether to create the article as titled Selmedica (The company) or Perry Belcher. I choose the latter, as this person has a history of changing company names and opening up operation once again. Albeit, due to the strictness and fairness of BLP, perhaps we can resume the article under the name Selmedica. I envision changing the article name to Selmedica, and a little rewrite would come across very well. In addition, to the extensive editing process that can commence, will make this article very informative. Further, I believe the wikipedia founding principles fits most perfectly for an article like "Selmedica". Thatopshotta (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had quickly hit deletion review. After sleeping on this matter, I realized everything you all are saying. You are absolutely right, no review necessary. When I have time, I will try and write a more comprehensive article, and include the specific references to the max.

The only thing propelling me to do this, is my conscious. That same conscious realized that it is unfair to Perry Belcher's family and children to have this article under his name. So I agree with you all, and in time Selmedica article should be up hopefully. Thatopshotta (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No DR needed Write the article under the name of his company and see what we think of it. I speedy deleted the article under his name as provided by BLP for having no reliable sources to justify accusations of fraud, which were the entire contents of the article. Even under the company name, such things take sourcing, and only non edit-controlled web sites were provided. Given the nature of the deleted article, I cannot repost it during the discussion, but i will email it privately if any non-admin wants to review it. There is a subsidiary issue of whether the fraud is in fact notable, but I did not investigate that part of it. DGG (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no matter what title it appears under; the only remotely acceptable source—the letter from the FDA—is primary, and the article didn't even pretend to be neutral. —Cryptic 07:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

primary and directed towards a very small part of the article only. I agreee that for an article under any title much better & fuller documentation would be needed. DGG (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]