Cowsay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD2)

The AfD2 was closed as "delete" by the nominator himself just an hour after listing it, with only two individuals having commented. About two and a half years before, the article had survived an AfD with at best a clear consensus to keep, and at worst a deadlock defaulting to keep--given that history, the ultra-quick closure was totally improper Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Got more info on this? The AFD linked is many years old, and apparently this was deleted 8 months ago. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Kmweber (talk · contribs) is apparently referring to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowsay (2nd nomination). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ehm, I don't think there's anything wrong with the AfD closure. The nom "closed" it because the article had been deleted; User:Mercury was not an admin at the time and is not currently an admin, so it would have been very difficult for him to have deleted it. Having an old VfD at no consensus doesn't preclude later AfDs, so there's nothing wrong with the nom either. And contesting a year-old speedy probably won't go far; though the cited criteria was a little off, I very highly doubt that we need it as a redirect to Moo. Overall, endorse. If anyone would like to write an article there, it's not salted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the logs show that Mercury did speedy delete it at that time under WP:CSD#A7, and then a redirect was deleted later the same day by a different admin. GRBerry 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ech, my bad. In that case, I highly doubt the program is notable, but the close was certainly incorrect. I'll stick with endorsing the speedy of the redirect, but overturn the A7 deletion and relist it. I doubt it'll survive, but that's not the issue here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's nice little program but there's not a lot to say about it. I suggest that the nominator might try writing an article about the subject in his userspace, then come back when it contains something that might be more use than the program's manual. --Jenny 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Valid WP:CSD#A7 deletion, as all the links/sourcing in the article were for web content containing the program code, making it web content. The deleted article contained no indication of significance or importance. GRBerry 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what was I thinking? That is right, A7 is not available after a prior AFD/VFD. Relist. Who knows, there might be a useful source out there if someone wants to look. GRBerry 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn A7 after a kept AfD is not acceptable. Given that multiple editors thought that this was worth keeping last time it should at very minimum be given the standard 5 days for people to find sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen the AfD, I have to agree that A7 speedying an article which has previously been discussed at AfD and kept is inappropriate. However, I will certainly be arguing for deletion at the reopened AfD. --Stormie (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn due to first AfD. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I do not think the deleting admin acted improperly, but I'm kind of leery about speedily-deleting an article that's been live that long. The admin should also not have speedily-deleted an article they nominated themselves for deletion (even if they felt it was a speedy, an admin should tag the article per normal procedure and have another admin delete it, to ensure a second set of eyes on it). I would like to point out, though, that a previous AFD does -not- preclude a speedy delete per se. Things can change over time, articles we thought were fine 2 years ago my not even meet minimum standards today (pika pika?) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement or "normal procedure" that I am aware of requiring an admin wanting to speedy an article to tag the page and have another admin delete it. I suspect such a procedure would bring speedy deletion to a standstill. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hence "should". I swear I've seen it before (I know it's official procedure in prod-land), but regardless, admins shouldn't be deleting things based upon solely their own opinion. It leads to situations like...well, this one. Admins can make bad calls just like the rest of us, and it's much harder to do so when two people are making the call. I also don't see how it slows things down that much. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The criteria for speedy deletion page clearly says "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." Davewild (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...didn't see that. Well, my point above still (mostly) stands. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While I disagree strongly with the policy, as things currently stand an article that has been through AFD and not deleted is not then eligible for speedy deletion. As such, overturn and relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yes, I know I tagged the page for speedying. That was before I discovered the aforementioned line of the policy. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly a caes for overturn. —Giggy 10:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Invalid CSD due to previous AfD. "CSD:Common sense" should not be uttered by a respectable wikipedian. Speedy deletions must be beyond reproach. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move to user space, otherwise it'll just get nominated and deleted again. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The existence of a prior deletion discussion (no matter how old) precludes the application of the CSD criterion. That has been the rule ever since the CSD process was first proposed. Rossami (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The result of the first AfD was keep. User:Mercury shouldn't have closed the second AfD because he was the nominator. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Diamond (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There was no consensus for the deletion, and I was not told about it. I think that, since I wrote the page, I should have been. It falls far below the standards for deleting a page - whether or not there was a complaint about it - and the comments pasted in the discussion show a rather severe lack of understanding of the page's content. The man is notable because of that big list of leading cases that were on the page. If anyone picks up a civil liberties,or labour law text book they could see this. Clearly, the nominator had not done so. WP:BIO's first line is that, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" That would seem to indicate - let alone textbooks - any court case report. In other words, the nomination was completely ridiculous in the first place, utterly failed to justify itself, and that is why more people argued against deletion than supported it. That makes the eventual decision to delete even more weird. It should be reviewed and reversed. Wikidea 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This seemed a clear close by any normal standard at an AfD. Four delete, two keep, one comment. That, combined with the fact that the page did seem to me to have balance, focus, and notability problems made this straightforward. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This seems a clear misinterpretation by the closer. AfD is not a vote. There were abundant sources whose relevance was not denied to show him clearly notable. No additional argument was relevant. Personally, I'm not sure thatthe general notability criterion makes much sense, but while we have it, we should follow it. DGG (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course AfD is not a vote. However the arguments presented by those arguing for deletion were compelling - the references do not substantially establish notability. The numbers are significant in that they suggest that this argument was viewed as persuasive by the participants. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the arguments were not compelling; you just preferred them. If they were compelling, then people would not have objected. Wikidea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted to keep based on a semi-notable version I made, however, I recognize that it was a border case and the AfD consensus was clearly to delete. Also, all proper procedure for closing, etc was followed, DRV is not AfD2. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - competently closed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below on procedure for deletion. Wikidea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn There is clearly good sourcing. Claims that the sourcing was insufficient is inaccurate. There were many non-trivial sources such as this one. Diamond is a willing public figure and thus subjecting an article to him to courtesy deletion is inappropriate. During the AfD editors had already taken steps to handle the actual BLP problems which should be dealt with by careful editing and keeping a watch on the article, not a rush to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did close it without predjudice - I am not opposed to an article on this topic. Just... not that article. Which was not even the start of a good article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we talking about this cached version- [1]? Most of it looks well-sourced. There's a lack of detailed sourcing about the Bar matter but that's easily sourceable. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only the Church Times source seems substantively about him, as opposed to about something else where he's mentioned. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, but we have other sources directly about him and nothing in that version is BLP problematic, yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a badly selective set of cases that seem to be stitched together to suggest that he loses most of his cases. The entire "cases" section would have to go, at which point you have very little. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This point is a good example separating those who know what they are talking about (me) and those who don't (you). If you look in the history, a previous version listed every case that he was in. If you are able to access a case law database like LexisNexis or Westlaw, you can search for counsel. This is what I did. The cases there are not selective, they include every case. And that is why I wrote on the page he has lost "virtually every" case he's been involved in. I don't write things because I'd like them to be true, I write them because they are. You on the other hand are just making baseless assertions from a position of ignorance. You are protecting your pride and concealing you're misjudgment. I'm sure you're a lovely person, but you're wrong. Wikidea 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • As far as I can tell it is all the notable cases he has been in. They all have separate Wikipedia articles and are thus notable and noteworthy given his interaction. If it gives a negative impression, that's not a BLP problem. BLP doesn't mean we can't have negative material (FWIW I didn't get a negative impression at all but that my just be because my most notable close relative is to a large extent notable for cases he has lost. But the basic issue is simple: a lawyer losing many prominent cases isn't a negative thing by itself. ) If there are other cases that Diamond has been involved in that are notable he can presumably point us to the sources since he sent in an OTRS ticket. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per my nomination statement. The recreations by the DRV nominator aren't doing him any favours, either. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DRV nominator's behavior isn't helpful but it isn't actively germane to whether or not the deletion was correct. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I know; I was merely commenting in passing. One could certainly apply a similar comment to your behaviour in past DRV's, but again, that wouldn't be directly relevant as well. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my recreation; that was a mistake, but I thoguht it would save the hassle, because then there could be objections about the content, not the existence. As Phil has suggested, he does not mind the page existing either. That makes the deletion in the first place even more weird. Wikidea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion: Per the AFD result. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - The article was BLP coatrack. Paraphrasing the article, "Diamond is a lawyer, he was disciplined, and he has contempt." Great. Good job. Most of the article was about the topic "Cases of Paul Diamond (lawyer)", a non-notable topic. The legal case information was set in his "biography" to tie the views presented in the legal cases as personal views of Paul Diamond. I don't need an OTRS ticket to see a hit piece. The AfD delete view had it right - "Simply representing groups in court is hardly sufficient to establish notability." Consensus about BLP at the AfD was enough to delete the article and consensus about the lack of Wikipedia notability at the AfD was enought to delete the article and keep the topic off Wikipedia. GregManninLB (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not read the guidelines my friend, which is why you are not quoting from them. It is not a "hit piece" - it is a good accurate account of the work he has been involved in, all notable, all national news. You can't say what is not neutral about it either, and if you do, that just goes to show, this is not a deletion debate! Wikidea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Good AFD close. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not impossible that a valid article could be written about Paul Diamond. This was not that article. Start from scratch. DS (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this page was protected in its latter form precisely because it was deemed to be neutral, or valid as you say. I'm happy to have that discussion, but not from the starting position of an illegitimate deletion. Wikidea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn too much weight put on the BLP concerns even though User:MBisanz made a version that fixed those issues. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From some of the above discussion, it sounds that recreation from scratch would be OK. Is this true? -- Ned Scott 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that it'd need to go via DRV or, at the very least, run past those who were involved in the deletion of it to ensure the issues relating to the OTRS ticket have been resolved. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even Phil seems to suggest with his comments in this DRV that it was less about notability of the topic, and more about the condition of the page. [2] If people are following the guidelines and policies for living people, etc, then the OTRS ticket should be a non issue. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, Phil rightly judged that the main purpose of the article was to disparage the subject or further an agenda. This does not mean we can't have an article, but this article was biased and violated core policies on neutrality and biography. This was identified in the AfD, and the closure rightly reflected that fact. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is it? Is it notability or neutrality? It can't be both. If it's neutrality, then the way to go about that is a neutrality tag. The fact that the man does create controversy shows that he is notable. Wikidea 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both. The subject is of marginal notability at best, and the article was sufficiently far from neutral that the subject felt the need to complain top the foundation (OTRS ticket 2008052010024191 for anyone who has access and wants to look it up). So that's actually three reasons to delete: notability, non-neutral BLP and the presumption for deletion where the subject requests it in marginally notable BLPs. I have no objection to a serious attempt to write an article which makes a more compelling case for notability but does not stray into the service of those who pursue an agenda against the subject. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you'll agree that the fact of a complaint doesn't necessitate deletion. I'm really flattered that it made the man send in a complaint, but I contest that there is anything innacurate in that article. As I said on the talk page, you shouldn't be so timid about vapid threats from someone who sounds legal. If you deleted everything when there was a complaint you'd have no articles on Israel, Mohammed, George W. Bush, Conservapedia... Wikidea 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and you also say that the article existing is okay. Then the procedure seems to me to be that there should be an arbitration on the page's neutrality. I ask you again, which is it? Notability or neutrality, because you can't seem to decide. Wikidea 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally there is no deadline. With problem BLPs, immediate action is required. We don't sit around for months gazing at our navels while the article sits there offending the subject. We don't have to be flattering, but we do have to be fair, and in this case I don't think we were. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are, I'm afraid, like everyone else endorsing deletion, being taken for a fool by a man who specialises in complaining about stuff until it gets judicial pronouncement. Of course this man takes offence at being described in a neutral way, because he's someone that actively seeks publicity in all forms of media to get a rather narrow theological-political agenda across (again, he's notable, look at all the newspaper reports). It's embarrassing that there are so many of you - like bleating sheep - giving in to intimidation and idle threats. I haven't seen the complaint, but frankly there is nothing in there that could scare me, because the page is accurate and it is impartial. Those to things are the essence of being fair to Mr Diamond. If you go ahead supporting that this page be deleted you are being grossly unfair on everyone who comes to Wikipedia to get information about stuff. It's a really big shame. Wikidea 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of this article. There could be an article about this person, but that wasn't it. WP:BLP applies. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability, "seems notable" is not good enough, and keep votes were appropriately discounted. Closer should have given a better explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On notability or neutrality: to be perfectly clear, this could either have been deleted because the man is not notable, or it was in some way not neutral. For those of you who think that it was not notable, you are clearly wrong. Those cases that are listed range from the European Court of Human Rights - you know, the big one that deals with disputes for over half a billion people; to the House of Lords, the highest court in the UK, to the normal tribunals. The very first case in the list, Eweida, was national news. So were all the others. Paul Diamond is an extremely high profile litigant, and frankly I am baffled at how ignorant those of you are for even disputing it. The man has been interviewed by papers all the time, he was the first barrister to try suing the bar council, his cases make news on a regular basis. If you do not believe he is notable, then you are not competent enough to have an opinion.
  Now, if the article is in some way not neutral, there is no reason for deletion. It would be a neutrality debate (which there was already before, and the resolution was to protect the article as it stood; which is why I stopped watching the page). There is nothing there that is counterfactual. And I challenge anyone to say otherwise, on the talk page, when this article is restored.
  I know those of you who have written most are only trying to do the right thing after a complaint, but you need to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong. As for proper procedure, it says on the deletion policy page,
  "3. Although not required, it is considered courteous to notify the article's creator and other significant contributors that you have proposed an article for deletion."
  If I had been notified, I would have said all this to begin with, and with your 4 for deletion and 3 (not 2) against as it stood, this never would have happened. Clearly you have failed to follow proper guidelines, clearly you were wrong to nominate, clearly it was wrong to delete because there was no consensus, and clearly you are digging yourself an even bigger hole of shame by continuing to argue. Wikidea 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vote. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you need consensus for deletion. Sure administrators have discretion. They should also have humility. Wikidea 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And humanity. I saw the email ticket form the subject, I guess Phil did too. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). While this was a somewhat close decision, it was within reasonable administrator discretion. It would also be appropriate to delete this regardless of the discussion under the conditions of WP:BLP which require us to consider the privacy concerns and requests of non-public or semi-public figures. I find no compelling evidence that this person has thrust himself into public light in such a way that would make him irrevocably a public figure. (The failure to notify the creator of the article is a minor wikiettiquette breach, explicitly not a reason to overturn a deletion discussion.) Rossami (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure Essentially the same reasoning as Rossami. I don't see any clear procedural errors here; in combination, the motivators for the close are rational. Townlake (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure; I don't see anything out of process with the deletion and given the content of the article, I'd likely have considered speedying it for being a blatant coatrack on which to roast a living person. I'm not certain that Wikipedia needs to have an article on this gentleman and I would strongly suggest that any further attempts at creation be very careful they are following WP:BLP. A suggestion about recreation: Given that this gentleman doesn't appear to be a public person and only notable in the light of particular court cases, it would seem that if he needs to be covered, it could be done in articles on the cases themselves (assuming they are sufficiently notable for an article). Shell ^babelfish 20:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Seeing as I appear to be losing this argument, can I enquire what the article would need to not have to be acceptable? Am I right in thinking that what most people object to is the descriptions of the cases in the article? So it would be okay to simply have a list of the cases below whatever description of Mr Diamond himself? When I was writing it to begin with, it was literally all from the many google.co.uk sources, and what they show up is all the stuff that's there; personally I'm only really interested in the law. I really don't mind what description of him there is: being "Times Lawyer of the Week" and his fight with the bar council was the prominent material. Contrary to some of the above comments, I contribute what I think is interesting, important, public information.

I have to say, once again, though, that the man is prominent. If you aren't from the UK, and not in the legal field I can see why you might take a different view. But can I refer everyone to "Category:British lawyers" (or any of the similar categories) - quite a lot of them should be deleted as well if this guy gets the Wikichop. Wikidea 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 coppers: unless the cases themselves are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, there's really no reason to list them in an article about the lawyer. Your point "[i]f you aren't from the UK, and not in the legal field..." shows that this is a very narrow-interest subject. We are very careful about biographies, especially if the main reason the person is known is for negative reports about them. "Lawyer of the Week" is interesting, but considering that's 52 people a year, I'm not sure that really qualifies as notable at that point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, many of these cases which are listed in the article have Wikipedia articles. For example, McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs, R. (on the application of Playfoot) v. Millais School Governing Body, Connolly v. DPP, Copsey v. WWB Devon Clays Ltd as well as others. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it's contrary, since I said "unless" they have articles. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I think Phil Sandifer did a right thing. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close. Eusebeus (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It keeps telling me I am copy righting from my own website!! Hfaux (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot get at the cache and so cannot judge the value of the article. There is a procedure for uploading files (which like your website are your copyright), whereby you as copyright owner grant WP a licence to use your material (see Toolbox - upload file in the left margin. The alternative is to alter the text slightly so that it does not quite match your website. I had this problem when I wrote something offline for WP and put it in by copy and paste. I was not helped by having saved the first line already, which some interfering Admin deleted while I was still writing the rest. I would suggest that initially you delete the "copy-vio" template when it appears and place your explanation on the talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alter the text slightly so that it does not quite match your website." - if you've done that with anything other than work you own the copyright to, I suggest you go back and remove it or rewrite it. Altering something in the way described makes it no less a copyvio, if it's your own work as the poster below you should send a release to WMF it'll then be on file and the article tagged accordingly. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't know that you are the copyright holder. If you want to release your material under the Creative Commons license on Wikipedia, you need to email info-en-c@wikimedia.org and they will work with you to substantiate you as the author of the work. Keep in mind that by placing the article on Wikipedia, it will be edited, and people are allowed to re-use your work freely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eep. Two problems. Text contributions here need to be released under the GFDL, and the correct email to send to is permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. That's what I get for posting when I'm busy! Thanks for the correction, Stifle. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The easier way to solve this is to go back to your own website and release the work under GFDL. Just add a GFDL comment in place of your existing copyright on the page. Once others can verify that you've released the work, the page can be restored. (I'll echo the comment above that minor rewording of the text does not absolve a copier of copyright concerns.) Rossami (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting talkpage restore. --75.47.138.12 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Curry (Oceanographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I re-created this article based on the original, but with additional wikilinks and references - I originally moved it from it's poorly-named original page. I also added a project stamp to the discussion page. The person is OBVIOUSLY a key player in the investigation of global warming, etc based on even the small amount I have read about him. I have attempted to contact the original admin, but they seem to have disappeared quite quickly after deleting all of my work. Other users (see Writersblockt and 75.44.13.146) are also trying to improve this article. He then reverted my disambiguation page, and placed page protection on a few of these pages. BMW(drive) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A proper amount of time to have waited for a response before filing this DRV would have been at least ten hours, not fifty minutes. We're all volunteers here, administrators included. Stifle also uses a wizard for messages instead of his talk page. That said, I believe that the version most recently deleted (older versions are at William curry phd) did not make CSD A7, and therefore the deletion should be overturned. Assertions of importance were clearly present. After restoration it could use quite a bit of copyediting, however. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Enough indication of importance to escape speedy deletion. Might not yet be enough to escape AFD, but with 5 days who can tell. GRBerry 18:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion, the only things that vaguely might be considered assertions of notability are that he holds various degrees, including a PhD, and that he is a member of the scientific staff at WHOI. Neither seems to hold him out as different. I also echo what Lifebaka said — I deleted the page at 16:13, left work fifteen minutes later to get home, and have signed on now. It's not my job to be online 24/7 :( Stifle (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it is very difficult to comment on a deletion, when the article had so little life that it does not appear in the Google Cache. This makes it impossibleto determine where the article did or did not hve merit. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article was:

William Curry, Ph.D., Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Geology and Geophysics Department. He holds a Bachelor of Science, University of Delaware, 1974, with specialization in Geology, and a Ph.D from Brown University, 1980, also with a specialization in Geology. Dr. Curry studies the history of earth's climate and carbon cycle using geological records of ocean chemistry and physical properties. He is actively involved with sea going expeditions to collect deep sea sediments and uses the chemistry of fossils in the sediments to determine how climate has changed on decadal to millennial time scales. He has been a member of the Scientific Staff at WHOI since 1981.[3][4][5]

PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong overturn The article asserts him to be "Director, Ocean and Climate Change Institute at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute." Given that this is the premier oceanographic Institute in the world, that is an absolutely unmistakable and obvious claim of distinction. The article will need some expansion to show his publications and their citations, but a person in such a position is exceedingly likely to be notable. I therefore recommend a refresher in the WP:CSD criteria for the deleting administrator) DGG (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommend you be a bit nicer :| Stifle (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - the google scholar results indicate the subject may possibly be notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - very likely notable. Risker (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If overturned, should be moved to "oceanographer" (ie. lowercase 'o'). Daniel (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Factory Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

No consensus/Insufficient time to improve article Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer Personally I thought there was sufficient consensus based on policy (lack of reliable sources) for deletion and could not see any of those who argued for keeping countered this - I will let others judge if that was correct or not. However if you would like the article userfied to improve the article in your own time then I am quite happy to do so. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please userfy. I intend to massively improve / totally rewrite this article, as it is severely lacking good sources. This may take many, many weeks as I (probably like most minor editors) have a proper job, a family and not much free time. As a relatively inexperienced editor, I would also like pointers on how other editors can collaboratively assist (ie. can we userfy this article for more than one editor? Can we place a notice on the talk page / AfD notes to indicate that such collaboration is being actively sought?) Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have userfied the article to User:Evilandi/Wasp Factory Recordings and answered your questions as I see them on you talk page. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closing admin's comments above are entirely correct. And yes, userfication is an option if you want to improve it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD was interrupted, but it did run for more than the standard length of time, so the time argument is false. Consensus to delete seems clear based on the strength of the arguments. GRBerry 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - close was entirely competent. Some of the keep 'votes' provided little justification and were abusive, so they should have been discounted. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse There's nothing wrong with finding additional sourcing that was not presented in the AfD. But until we have such sourcing the AfD should stand. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why? Stifle (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I'm inexperienced and made a mistake, confusing the AfD discussion itself with direct discussion with the admin. Sorry. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the clarification. Endorse deletion per GRBerry. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There is an objection to my closure of this AfD. Because I am not as available as I would like to be to pick this up, I bring it here for review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd personally have !voted delete, but in the absence of any good reason not to I'll have to endorse the no consensus closure. What I'd really like to see is a ton of pruning on the list to remove most of the redlinks, especially those which really can't have articles written about them. This seems like the best comprombetween delete and keep in this case. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - agree with Lifebaka, under the circumstances a no consensus close was reasonable. In due course, the article can be renominated. PhilKnight (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Numbers of opinions were more split, but robustness of arguments much less so. The first two keep votes only said that although the list could never be completed, (therefore it is indiscriminate, as there is no end) it should stay, without any reason why. The next two stated that the the article is indeed notable, but provided no reasoning whatsoever (except WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). The next one doesn't even matter, no argument whatsoever is put forth. The next one doesn't really address the nomination, and the next one is another unsupported OTHERCRAPEXISTS "it's notable" statement. The last one only addresses the verifiability of the list, which was never in question. So basically, no arguments successfully disputed the claim of the nominator, that the list was indiscriminate and not notable. Their arguments were unsupported assertions of notability, and arguments that actually supported the argument that it was an indiscriminate list. I support overturning as delete. (I was the one who disputed the close, for the copy/paste reason above) seresin ( ¡? ) 21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be that indiscriminate lists can be pruned instead of deleted most of the time. At least, most of the time I've seen it being an issue. Supposing it limits itself to bluelinked drum corps, would that be fine? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no reason to limit it like that. There have only been a finite number of drum & bugle corps in the approximately 80-year history of the activity; they are all worthy of a place on the list, and eventually (when enough information can be found) an article. Having an article is not, has never been, and should never be a prerequisite for being on a list. The list has value in and of itself, and should be kept for that reason alone. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!)

• Endorse I !voted to delete at the AfD. But apparently there was not enough consensus for t hat. a reasonable close. If the article doesn't get improved a little in the next few months, it can be considered again. DGG (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it need to be improved to avoid deletion? Sure, it's incomplete--but that's a reason to leave it alone so people can keep working on it; it's most certainly not a reason to delete it. As it stands, there is no valid reason to delete it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus as the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kington Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article on an English football (soccer) club was deleted on the grounds that the club had never played at Step 6 or above in the National League System, having dropped out of the West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division in May 2006, the month before it was regraded up from Step 7 to Step 6. However, the "Step" system was not introduced until 2004, seven years after Kington entered the WMRL Premier, so it's debatable what Step the club played at in that period. Also, the club has competed in the national FA Vase competition three times (see The Football Club History Database) and is the subject of news articles here and here and a major aspect of this one. And finally, from a purely aesthetic point of view, this club's name is the only redlink in the WMRL's 116 year roll call of champions...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Also seeking undeletions of Mahmoud Sanoussi, Mahmoud Chami and Tayyab Sheikh. These articles were deleted as proposed deletions, and are being mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Sanoussi, where there is the possibility that the articles may be salted. I wish to examine these articles to see if they mention anything encyclopedic that has not been included in Sydney gang rapes, while keeping in mind GFDL and BLP issues. Andjam (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, prods are supposed to be overturned on any reasonable request. In this case, I decline to undelete because this really is a request for a copy of the article. This request could be satisfied by emailing the contents to the user, and I have no objection to an admin doing so. I will say that there were no inline citations in any of these articles, so if they are emailed the editor will have to go to the references, figure out what if any parts of the article each supports, et cetera. GRBerry 13:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email is fine. Andjam (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]