< July 20 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 22 >

21 July 2008

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Twing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'd like the article restored to my userspace so I can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. Or, simply restored so that I can work on it in the usual space.

The main issue for original deletion was for notability in term of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) At the time, I wasn't familiar with AfD nominations and how to quickly fix problems. So I didn't deal with the issues fast enough and the article was zapped.

There are, however, a variety of independent sources that can now be referenced and I'd like a chance to put them into the article to comply with notability issues. Scottwrites (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting admin response: Since the AFD was so unsuccessful in finding indepdendent sources to address the notability issue, I've elected to userfy the deleted copy to a subpage in the user's space, here: User:Scottwrites/Twing, and have given him instructions to work on it there and thereafter ask an admin to review it there. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • The Squeaky Cheese is the Mouse's Wheel – endorse deletion, speedy closure of this nomination as pointless and disruptive. The nominator/author has already been blocked for disruptive vandalism. – Shereth 22:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Squeaky Cheese is the Mouse's Wheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article has been deleted via speedy deletion twice, not sure why, it is a legitimate article with no uncoherent or innapropriate content. Thank you Phantomphr34k (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Editor didn't contact me first about this, but it's easy to tell why. This is the article's first paragraph: The aphorism '''The Squeaky Cheese is the Mouse's Wheel''' is the wise original thought, spoken in context, by the widely unknown however noted aphorist James Hazel.<ref>First hand quotation and citation of coinage-of-term by first hand accounts and testimony.</ref> While held highly for its wisdom and insight, little is known of its true meaning. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion as G3 (vandalism through creating nonsense articles). Nominator indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. No objection to an unblock once he or she states how he or she would like to contribute productively.  Sandstein  19:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy-deletion as vandalism. (I find it interesting and very concerning that the vandal included a fraudulent source citation at the bottom of the article. This reinforces some of the concerns that were raised the last time we talked about the unintended consequences of an enforced sourcing standard.) That said, the vandal has only made three edits including the nomination above. Indef-blocking seems perhaps premature. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion - vandalism. And worse, not even amusing vandalism - come on, if you're going to waste everyone's time with nonsense at least give us a giggle in the process. nancy (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion -- The citation of "oral transmission" is akin to WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Unnamed page, then modified to Joseph Armitage Robinson – Administrative closure of an incomplete and then partially-overwritten nomination. Notes have been left with both users requesting a clean nomination request. – Rossami (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PAGE_NAME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this Page in Wikisource:

9/11 Commission Report/Chapter 10

I have a request for a "History only undeletion"

In Wikisource, someone deleted the part of the 9/11 Commission Report/Chapter 10 

which contains page 334 and the following quote:

“The memo found no “compelling case” that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks.”

See this history comparision links:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=9%2F11_Commission_Report%2FChapter_10&diff=161856&oldid=88462

See the document in its original state at page 334 at this US government link:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch10.pdf

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please make it clear what page you want undeleted. Hut 8.5 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sorry but I do not understand this deletion review. The deleted article was about Joseph Armitage Robinson, "...successively Dean of Westminster (1902-1911) and of Wells (1911- )" Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first nomination request was made by user:Boyd Reimer who did not specify the page that had been deleted. The change to the page was made by user:Clive sweeting who only changed the header but did not provide a rationale for undeletion. I'm not seeing a connection between the two editors or the two pages. I suspect these are two independent and both malformed nominations. Unfortunately, I don't see how to fix it. I recommend that we adminstratively close this discussion and leave a note on each user's page with a link to the instructions. Rossami (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, to tidy this up, I think Roassami and I agree the most helpful thing to do is restore the article and send it to AfD. Please close this DRV when the link turns blue, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:United States elections in Massachusetts – Deletion endorsed. The arguments for deletion (strong, but not overwhelming) in a limited-participation CfD have been echoed coherently in this DRV, reinforcing the trend of the consensus in the CfD. The primary argument for overturning is a lack of consensus in the CfD. But, at 2:1, I do not see a strong case that this didn't fall within the range of administrative discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Federal elections in Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

No consensus was reached. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 6#Category:Federal elections in Missouri. I prosposed renaming it. Someone else suggested deleting. The result was delete. Why? —Markles 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. The nomination of "'United States elections…' is better and possibly more consistent with other states' elections." falls flat when the supercat of Category:United States elections by state is examined. There are only two categoies in it, Category:Federal elections in Missouri and Category:United States elections in Massachusetts. So I determined the "rename per consistency" argument rather weak. The other two users involved in the discussion brought forth compelling arguments for deletion, namely, that there are other categories already in place to deal with federal elections, and that the ((MissouriFederalElections)) template does a better job of navigation. --Kbdank71 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion (if that's the opposite of endorse) as original nominator. There was no nomination to delete in the first place. The problem was merely the name. So I suggested renaming it. Why did that end up as a "delete"? Does that become a warning to future nominations for renaming: "If you suggest a little change you might end up with an entire deletion." When someone else then cam along and voted for "Delete, else Rename" I voted against deletion, but a third voter crossed out my "new" vote saying I was voting twice. Then, that third party added another category to the nomination, proposing to delete it. In the end, there was no consensus for deletion of either category. —Markles 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Your opinion that the deletion should be overturned is clear from your nomination. Please continue to participate in the discussion here and reply to comments or add new evidence as you feel appropriate but please don't use the bolded, bulleted format when commenting. Using that format at the front of a comment gives the impression that you are trying to have your opinion counted twice and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually has to sort out all our opinions and close out this discussion. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. My mistake.—Markles 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion -- I am an Englishman, but I see no reason why there should not be a category for the Federal elections of each of the 50 states + US territories. In UK, there is a project producing articles on every Parliamentary constituency, I do not see why there should not be the equivalent for USA. On the other hand, the format should be consistent, so that the question is whether the format should be as for the Missouri or Massachusetts case. My preference (for what it is worth) would be for Federal, not US.
  • 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) 11:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • User error. I thought that this venue was a better place to halt the process temporarily and to broaden the discussion to more people. Not only did the nomination have no consensus, it also had few people involved.—Markles 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep saying there was no consensus. Do you realize that consensus does not mean vote counting? --Kbdank71 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Overturn and relist because there was so much chopping and changing that no sensible consensus could be derived from the CFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn no consensus at CfD. -- Ned Scott 08:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Had I closed this I would have read Vegaswikian's comment as the most relevant to the question with the result that I'd have also closed it as delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but maybe you shouldn't close CfDs if that is the case. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, that was a bit harsh for me to say, nor was it a fair comment to make since I'm not familiar with your XfD closures. -- Ned Scott 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Kbdank71. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Kbdank71. - I asked him about this on his talk page. And taking his responses there, and his comments here together, I think it's fair to say that this falls within administrative discernment. (Also noting/reaffirming: XfD is not about counting "votes".) - jc37 12:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Look What You Made Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The debut album of rapper Yung Berg, it was deleted and protected this past May due to a lack of reliable sources. However, since its protection, it has been confirmed by various sources such as MTV.com [1], Rap-Up.com [2] (the past to of which covered a listening session held by Epic Records with several confirmed tracks revealed for the album), an interview on DJBooth.net [3] (I know you might not see it as a reliable source, but there are plenty of tracks confirmed straight from the horse's mouth there) and on Amazon.com [4] (where an album cover was released) as having a release date of August 12. There are plenty more I could name, but I just wanted to give you some basic sources to recreate the article. Also, three of the confirmed tracks (Sexy Lady, Sexy Can I, and The Business) have charted on the Billboard Hot 100, with the first two placing in the Top 20 and the second one in the Top 10 there. Unprotect at the very least, then as soon as you unprotect, I hope to gather up all the sources so I can Recreate the page. Tom Danson (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Now that a release date appears to have been confirmed I have unprotected the page (which I protected on 25th May) as the terms of the protection were to prevent recreation until the album was released. nancy (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here says that even though the editor turned out to be a sock, this did not change consensus. Over at WT:AFD a suggestion that noms by banned editors be automatically overturned or closed never reached consensus either, because of times when other users have made delete !votes before it came to light that the editor was banned at the AfD. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD lacked consensus, potential value as a merge to page on Dark Angels, and nominated by an account previously pointedly named User:Killerofcruft that was blocked as a sock of a banned editor following checkuser. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (I'll be copy/pasting this reply to the other DRV, the two are similar enough to be judged on the same merits) The comment of the deleting admin on the Armageddon AfD should be the rule to determine whether or not the process failed. "Closure is based on strength of arguments presented, not vote counting". All 11 of these articles were nominated as having failed the WP:GNG. The nominator noted in both AfD's that no independent, reliable source covered the subjects in sufficient detail to meet WP:N. Several respondents felt the same way. The closing admin weighed those arguments against the keep arguments and came to the same decision in each situation. In this case we should judge arguments on the basis of their appeal to guidelines or policies and weigh them accordingly. This was done properly in both cases. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WH40K project has a relevant discussion. tl;dr version: Day isn't banned, he's blocked for unrepentant harassment and is more or less welcome back when he is willing to put a stop to it. Unless someone's willing to come up with some way that this is harassment, it's a good-faith deletion effort backed by a number of editors in good standing. Endorse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the nominator was a sockpuppet should have absolutely no bearing on the result of this AfD. Consensus, regardless of the legitimacy of the person who requested it, was that the article should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - that the nominator was a sockpuppet has no bearing on the overall consensus of the AfD. The concerns of the delete !votes concerning the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic were never adequately addressed. Aside from that, the administrator correctly determined the result based on the weight of the arguments put forward. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure seems based on legitimate interpretation of policy and arguments given. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. More than twice as many people suggested deletion than any other alternative and in the absence of extremely strong arguments the closer acted correctly. Listing of DRVs in such circumstances is heading for the territory of disruption. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the weak arguments for deletion and that AfD is not a vote and that it was nominated by a disruptive account previously called "Killerofcruft" we absolutely must relist, void, overturn, userfy or something to discourage block evading accounts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there is no need to invoke problems with a user to restore an article. Your side lost the debate, and yours is as weak an argument as many of those you refer to. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for the same reason we delete articles started by banned editors. It seems likely, though, that there would be the same result. But listing it here is not disruption, considering the rather extensive nature of the sockpuppetry and that there is no specific policy about what to do in these cases. 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. While the nominator may have been improperly evading a block, the arguments presented for deletion and the decision of the closing admin were in good faith and would not have changed, had the nominator been another user. Pagrashtak 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct closure based on clear consensus and policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, This would have been the correct decision based upon either strength of policy based argument or upon a simple numbers calculation. A combination of both makes this a no-brainer. --Allen3 talk 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not about whether some simply don't like these kinds of articles and want them deleted, but rather are we really going to be okay with nominations made by a blatantly single-purpose account originally named "Killerofcruft" who was evading an idefinite block? I really hope for better from members of our community than to allow that to slide. Also, in both this and the Armageddon one there is information that I worst I can use if userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the analogy that we used the last time this came up was that "even a broken clock is right twice a day." The proposal to add a section about bad-faith nominations being a reason to invalidate a discussion has been rejected at WP:ATA. The blocked user's opinion gets ignored in the nose-counting but verifiable evidence and logical, policy-based arguments are welcome from anyone. Rossami (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the discussion appears to have had sufficient consensus to support this closure. Shereth 22:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure as supported by policy and discussion consensus. I certainly appreciate LGRdC's concern that we do not allow banned editors to contribute whatsoever, but invalidating an AfD on that issue is not productive. If the AfD nomination had been closed immediately based on WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, I would have supported that. But now that the outcome has been properly determined, a little WP:IAR is in order. — Satori Son 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. No actual flaws I can see, DRV nominator's shifting rationales notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 14:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000) – Deletion endorsed. Consensus here says that even though the editor turned out to be a sock, this did not change consensus. Over at WT:AFD a suggestion that noms by banned editors be automatically overturned or closed never reached consensus either, because of times when other users have made delete !votes before it came to light that the editor was banned at the AfD. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

AfD lacked consensus, potential value as a merge to page on Armageddon, and nominated by an account previously pointedly named User:Killerofcruft that was blocked as a sock of a banned editor following checkuser. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse (I'll be copy/pasting this reply to the other DRV, the two are similar enough to be judged on the same merits) The comment of the deleting admin on the Armageddon AfD should be the rule to determine whether or not the process failed. "Closure is based on strength of arguments presented, not vote counting". All 11 of these articles were nominated as having failed the WP:GNG. The nominator noted in both AfD's that no independent, reliable source covered the subjects in sufficient detail to meet WP:N. Several respondents felt the same way. The closing admin weighed those arguments against the keep arguments and came to the same decision in each situation. In this case we should judge arguments on the basis of their appeal to guidelines or policies and weigh them accordingly. This was done properly in both cases. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WH40K project has a relevant discussion. tl;dr version: Day isn't banned, he's blocked for unrepentant harassment and is more or less welcome back when he is willing to put a stop to it. Unless someone's willing to come up with some way that this is harassment, it's a good-faith deletion effort backed by a number of editors in good standing. Endorse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the nominator was a sockpuppet should have absolutely no bearing on the result of this AfD. Consensus, regardless of the legitimacy of the person who requested it, was that the article should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should have every bearing on it as we should not make it okay for such accounts to return with single purposes and disrupt Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - that the nominator was a sockpuppet has no bearing on the overall consensus of the AfD. The concerns of the delete !votes concerning the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic were never adequately addressed. Aside from that, the administrator correctly determined the result based on the weight of the arguments put forward. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The the nominator was a sockpuppet means that AfD should have never been allowed to proceed. We don't delete redirectable articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We judge arguments, not who said them. If the nominator isn't using additional accounts as meatpuppets, then there is not a problem. The closing administrator weighed the arguments and made the correct decision based on the strength of those arguments. Trying to discount consensus by attacking a single user is petty wikilawyering. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a borderline AFD but I think the closer judged it correctly, bearing in mind the common practice of discounting the recommendations of unregistered users. Endorse deletion. Whether the nominator was blocked, banned or otherwise is immaterial once there is a consensus to delete. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the weak arguments for deletion and that AfD is not a vote and that it was nominated by a disruptive account previously called "Killerofcruft" we absolutely must relist, void, overturn, userfy or something to discourage block evading accounts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for the same reason we delete articles started by banned editors. Govenn the close, it is quite possible that there might not be the same result. 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. While the nominator may have been improperly evading a block, the arguments presented for deletion and the decision of the closing admin were in good faith and would not have changed, had the nominator been another user. Pagrashtak 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure was correctly done on the basis of strength of arguments, not on head count; for the same reason, the identity of the (banned) nominator plays no role in the assessment. A stronger policy-based argument is still a stronger policy-based argument if it is brought forward by a banned sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closing admin was correct to use the stronger policy based argument as the basis of closure instead of a simple headcount. --Allen3 talk 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's not about whether some simply don't like these kinds of articles and want them deleted, but rather are we really going to be okay with nominations made by a blatantly single-purpose account originally named "Killerofcruft" who was evading an idefinite block? I really hope for better from members of our community than to allow that to slide. Also, in both this and the Dark Angels one there is information that I worst I can use if userfied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Single-purpose accounts are fine, as long as you're not trying to create an illusion of a groundswell of support/opposition where there is none and if willing to accept that the only weight your words will carry are the merits of your arguments. The former isn't the case, and in the latter case the force of the arguments carried the day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Making editors jump through legalistic hoops to overturn an obvious decision is plain silly and petty Wikilawyering to boot. --Calton | Talk 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law – Deletion endorsed. – --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am the author of the article. An Admin posted a +Speedy, I countered with a +Hangon and it was deleted anyway. I have no affiliation with the book in question. Therefore, the article should be put back and an +afd posted i.e. try to build a consensus if you can, I will abide by the outcome. If you feel the article needs to be modified, that is fine too, but definitely not +Speedy. I wrote this article to support the another article I have written called Surrogatum. Thank you! Green Squares (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this article as promotional in nature and recommended its immediate deletion. Lines like this troubled me:
  • "There is a reason for everything, and we always try to explain what that reason is."
  • "We hope as well that it will be useful to courts, especially when they have to deal with fundamental issues, and we have been delighted that it has been cited in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada."
  • "We have tried to avoid the complex abstractions with which the Income Tax Act is replete. Our language is as simple, concrete and non-technical as our capability and the nature of the subject permitted."
It seemed the author was either associated with the book himself -- a clear conflict of interest -- or else he'd copied it from somewhere -- a copyright violation. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this book might be notable based on citations in Google Scholar
I'm certainly open to an article about this book that meets our requirements; in the meantime, if the deleted article is not a copyright violation, I suggest "userfying" it.
I have left notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation about this discussion.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no ISBN in the article, no sign of notability other than by assertion... this certainly reads like promo blurbage to me. The authors dedicated their contributions to this book to their spouses and children. ... mmmhmm... probably not encyclopedic prose there. Endorse Deletion, without prejudice to userification if there is any chance the book actually is notable. (the book does exist, and can be found in Amazon ... it has a rank somewhere in the 6M range.) For ref: ISBN 9780459576530 ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not totally clear on why this article is "in support of Surrogatum"... a book doesn't have to be notable to be citeable. If this book has relevant material to the Surrogatum article, (which by the way seems off to a good start) go ahead and cite from it. That will not be affected by whether this article stays or is removed. Based on the Google Scholar cites, though, perhaps this book is notable... the article just needs some work to wikify it, in that case. ++Lar: t/c 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting admin here. Please see conversation at User talk:Kylu (permalink) regarding my position. Thanks. :) Kylu (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone not aware, one of the authors of Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law, Peter Hogg, clearly is notable. He is generally thought of as one of the top legal academics in Canada. His most notable books are Liability of the Crown and Constitutional Law of Canada, neither of which has its own article. --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The version of the article that was deleted qualified for speedy deletion as spam. However, it should not be protected from creation. The book may well be notable enough to have an article, but this wasn't it. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there was nothing to salvage in the article as deleted which looked like a publisher's puff piece. Given the tone of the content there is no merit in userfication, nevertheless I cannot see the justification for it remaining a protected title. nancy (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite true, when I added the protection, it was short-term and intended only to defer creation until after the DRV. See rationale at as noted in the protection log. I had no desire to see the article protected forever, merely to allow the discussion to take place first. I'm still wary of the wording used in the article: Perhaps, does anyone have access to this book? Perhaps check the dustjacket for similar phrasing. Kylu (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I tend to be flexible about partially promotional articles for speedy, but there was nothing here to use. If the book is adopted widely & gets good reviews, and these can be cited from indpendent sources (not the book jacket , the publishers promotional literature, or Amazon), then an article can be resubmitted. DGG (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - in accordance with DGG's sound reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More