Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 3

Overclock.net – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Can anyone explain why the Overclock.net was somehow finally deleted ? Come on guys, it's a site that gives out so much technical information, so much guides, has a big user base, most questions get answered quickly, in the important sections contains well written english, has been cited in numerous computer related media ( Maxim, TechTV, and such ) It brings knowledge for free, isn't that what Wikipedia is trying to do ? At least, if you still do find the site as a notable one, it still acts like Wikipedia, and I think that you guys must consider as a little brother or sister, because of it spreading knowledge. Please, Keep it User:F2002yann

Comment Reopened DRV for consideration. --Core desat 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thorny AfD with lots of x-puppeteering, so we should have a second look at it, and if only to back the closer if the decision was in order. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. There are no sources about the site itself. Sure, it's been mentioned once or twice in a few articles that are about a different subject (overclocking), but that's it. --UsaSatsui 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Still no new information, still a conflict of interest from the nominator. WP:INTERESTING is not grounds for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen Afd. The comments that the AfD had problems is sufficient, if we think them important. We do not have a to argue N and RS here. DGG 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion given the lack of new information or sources about the site itself. --Core desat 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion how many freakin' times are we going to go through this? JuJube 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here it was speedy closed twice; until the speedy closer decided that it was better to go through it once here before we start speedy closing it. I agree with that; we should speedy close second and later discussions with no new information, but the first one should always be treated with respect. Too abd it is effectively the third one we are doing that to. GRBerry 04:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with speedy closing where there is no new evidence and the requester admits a conflict of interest. How many deletions are overturned under those circumstances? I can't remember one. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My current image of deletion review is the backup safety valve on a pressure cooker. Running the review can reduce emotional tension. Even in such a case, WP:BITE can make it worth a polite discussion, so people don't feel railroaded by a cabal. GRBerry 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion It is clear that at least some of the delete opiners engaged the offered sources, and found them severely wanting. These folks include Gracenotes (G4 TechTV), Kyra (the PDF of an older newspaper article), and possibly Addhoc (I'm uncertain what his last few words mean). (I can't tell about the folks that didn't specifically discuss sources, they may or may not have looked.) Others were not made available in form useful for verification. Most of the keep commentary was by new editors that don't yet understand that activity levels, google rank, google hits, etc... are just not relevant to whether the website is encyclopedicly notable, and thus these comments weren't based on our policy and guidelines. The closing was clearly correct, given the discussion and souring made visible. No new, independently published, reliable sources primarily about the website have been offered here in order to overturn as a relisting. (Incidentally, being a member on a forum does not constitue a COI; otherwise any Wikipedia would have a COI when they discussed Wikipedia, so I disregard the statement that our appelant has a COI in the absence of more information.) GRBerry 04:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endore my close (deletion), the keep votes had no valid arguements and I normally discount new users while the article failed WP:RS a key wikipedia policy Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and suggest that this be speedy closed the next zillion times it comes up. I must congratulate the nom, however, on at least coming up with a highly unique rationale: "you guys must consider as a little brother or sister" is certainly something we haven't heard before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:User Anti-UN – request withdrawn – GRBerry 23:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

~~It was an userbox, not a conventional template, but the admin used conventional template standard to speedily delete it and disregarded the consensus to keep, see here.~~ I changed my mind and no longer support the undeletion of this template Wooyi 22:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - The day of the divisive and inflammatory userbox is long gone. --Cyde Weys 22:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is old news (shrug). We've moved on. As the deleting admin (back last MAY!!!) I don't care what happens to userboxes any more. I hereby give permission for any admin who does to undelete/keep deleted/more to userspace/apply WP:GUS or whatever other solution they like. Let's just not debate it again, please.--Doc^g 22:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comment: linked TFD and prior DRVU in the link list above. GRBerry 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC) And TFD2 GRBerry 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I heard so many people here talking about the alleged userbox ideological war, I have been editing wiki for long but I have never seen such a thing going on, is the so-called "userbox war" real or it was just made up? Wooyi 22:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was real. It was painful. For one of the battle scars, see Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates (page never finished, now historical), which was ultimately about how WP:CSD#T1 should be interpreted. In an earlier flareup, some admins got demoted. GRBerry 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh joy. We, as a community, really don't need this discussion opened. First, the code of the old userbox is visible by editing the page linked to as DRVU above. So if the request is withdrawn and and someone chooses to create a page in their userspace in the spirit of Wikipedia:Userbox migration, it could just go away until such time as that new page gets deleted. That is my first choice. Second, looking at the logs, the DRVU in February overturned the speedy deletion, it went back to TFD, while there it is speedy deleted and quickly undeleted, and the TFD closed as no consensus to delete. Nothing visibly happens until May, when it is speedy deleted again. Aargh. Let me think. GRBerry 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I believe current consensus would be that userboxes that express opposition to things are not helpful. As such, lets just cut off the extra process and let the sleeping dog lie. GRBerry 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as I edited in the above, I want to announce that, although I initiated this discussion, now after seeing many facts, no longer want this debate to go on and withdraw my original opinion. Wooyi 23:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sweetfox.com – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Our Article was deleted because the company didn't having enough impact in 2006. After months of working with the community and artists we would like to respectfully resubmit our article. We have been mentioned in several local magazines, the latest has can be found here: http://www.skorchmagazine.com/07-Feb/maghtm.asp?1=58&2=59. Sweetfox.com received approx 275,000 hits for the month of December.

Original Message: [edit] Sweetfox Please reand through Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion especially Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7, Wikipedia:Deletion policy and especially Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No you don't have to be as big as ebay but you do have to have some sort of impact. Can you provide some sort of sources? An newspaper report or a online mention from a respected site (not somebodys blog) or something like that? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We were asked to provide a newspaper article, online mention, etc. and that is what we have provides. Please reinstate our article. End---- Sistersoldier24 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as valid A7. The source provided in this DRV may or may not be reliable, as it is a rather new e-zine (started in January 2007, according to its website) with only two issues. The claim of 275,000 hits also does not seem to check out. More sources would be needed. --Core desat 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List in AfD As this deletion seems to have been based on a speedy, that means only one or two people have seen it and voted to delete, though it sounds like they were correct. Instead of immediately appealing, the eds. very sensibly improved the article. Thee should be a simple way of looking at it again, without having to turn AfD into a discussion of N.--especially a discussion of N without having the article visible. This is was AfD is for. isn't it? DGG 23:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, spammy, no obvious assertion of notability, self-admitted conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:WEB. The 3,550,169 Alexa rank doesn't suggest a lot of attention so far. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

List of fictional expletives – Speedy endorsed, raises no issues in the deletion process. – pgk 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted by someone who according to his user page is "on a break". How can you be on a break and still delete articles? It seems your not taking your work as a bureaucrat seriously then.

(Not to mention of course that the delete was absolutely ludicrous, as the reasons given had nothing to do with standing procedure.)--82.92.181.129 20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

maintenance: added above links and pointed to AFD. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - in the AfD, it was pointed out as being an indiscriminate, unsourced list, and nearly unanimous to delete because of those issues, the lack of sourcing seeming to be the larger issue. The only keep was an 'I like it' kind of comment. The AfD was valid. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion obvious consensus in AfD and nothing new presented in this DRV. --W.marsh 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Omi (Xiaolin Showdown) – copy of article tweaked and sourced mostly to primary sources, history merged, relisting left to editorial discretion – GRBerry 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Had I known about its AFD, I would have commented there, but that time has passed. Omi is a main character in the cartoon Xiaolin Showdown. As such, he can have a separate article per WP:FICT and what not. However, Sandstein closed the AFD and deleted the article as it did not pass WP:V or WP:NOR. The only reliable sources about this character would be from the television show itself, and several fansites (honestly, at the show's official site, it's all flash so direct linking to a bio there is near to impossible). I wouldn't have objected to a merge, but barring the fact that if I undeleted to merge, that'd be wrong to do as a newbie admin.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the character Omi, is plastered across the logo for the series and is front and center on the main page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as closing admin. This character may of course have his article - if that article is sourced. The article at issue, however, has contained a grand total of zero sources ever since being created in 2005, and as such is WP:OR by default. Fansites would be inadmissible under WP:RS, but nothing forbids creating references (not necessarily weblinks) to the official website or, as primary sources, to individual episodes of the show. As it stands, though, this unsourced content should neither be merged anywhere, nor should the article be recreated in its previous form. As the core policies of WP:V and WP:NOR cannot be overridden by editors' consensus, deletion is the only option currently available to us. Sandstein 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The above also applies, incidentally, to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters and practically all of its subarticles. I'll AfD these as well if this deletion is endorsed. Sandstein 20:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to the various major websites that concern information about the show to every single page that is related to serve as verifiable sources that the individuals exist. If the articles need work to get rid of fancruft (which I originally had worked on when I had all of the Xiaolin Showdown articles on my watchlist), deleting them should not be an option, considering the fact that removing false information is better than making normal users not able to look up the biography of the main character of a series (I had to delete what's essentially a test page because that was just a copy-paste of the biography elsewhere).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. There was clearly no consensus here in my eyes, and the idea that one admin's idea of whether an article is OR or verified trumps consensus is just ridiculous in my eyes. Consensus is what decides those things. Relist it and give it another shot. --UsaSatsui 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous. It's my job as a closing admin. WP:DGFA says:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies, and where it is impossible that an article on any topic can exist without breaching these three policies, such policies must again be respected above other opinions. – Sandstein 22:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...but...I don't see a consensus on whether or not the article was those things. Sure, I saw a lot of silly keep votes, but nothing really strikes me as a powerful argument on the other side either. The appearance that you made this decision by absolute fiat (whether intentional or not) is what rubs me the wrong way here, and I don't really see anything in the nomination that supports your call. If the article truly is that bad (I don't know, I haven't seen it), it'll probably be deleted again anyways. --UsaSatsui 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, this was an unequivocal case: the article cited not a single source. In such clear-cut cases, it's my responsability to decide by fiat to apply the core policies, as the quote above makes clear. Sandstein 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn another case of WP:V being misapplied. There is no question that the subject exists - thus the subject is verifiable. It may well be that there are insufficient sources indicating notability, but lack of notability does not mandate deletion - that's a matter for decision by consensus. There is no consensus to delete here - and not overriding policy reason to delete in the absence of consensus.--Doc^g 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Trialsanderrors said below. Also, no sources mean the article is prima facie WP:OR, irrespective of whether the subject exists or not, and WP:NOR also can't be overridden by consensus. Sandstein 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! 1) No sources means only that an article has currently no sources. So try to source it. If you can't then remove all unverifiABLE claims (as OR). If that doesn't leave much, redirect it, or nominate if for deletion. But the question of whether a sourced article can be written is one for consensus not admin fiat. 2) No, Elvis's birth certificate doesn't prove he's the King of rock and roll - but that's totally irrelevant. If you can't verify that claim, remove it. But the birth certificate would verify the existence of Elvis Presley. And so the question would not be WP:V but WP:N (is he, without the unverifiable claim, notable?)- and notability does not mandate deletion, that's up to consensus.--Doc^g 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of WP:V is profoundly flawed. "Unverifiable" does not mean "unverifiable to a dedicated researcher", it means "unverifiable to the person reading the article". Therefore, "no sources" does mean "unverifiable", as WP:V makes clear: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. And it's certainly not up to me to source it, as, again from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. So, if you want the article recreated or kept, please go source it yourself first. Sandstein 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Under your understanding we'd delete half of Wikipedia as unsourced. Unverified != unverifiable.--Doc^g 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if someone took the time to AfD half of Wikipedia and it still had no sources after the AfD, we'd delete that half of Wikipedia. The wording of WP:V is very clear that unverified (by the editor) = unverifiable (to the reader!) Sandstein 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) According to WP:V, the burden of providing reliable sources for verification lies with those who wish to keep the article or article content, not with those who are considering the removal of an article or article content. There was no obligation for Sandstein to search for sources or consider the likelihood of sources existing somewhere before closing Bwithh 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone says 'hey this article isn't verifiable', then yes the onus is not the keep voter to show it is. However, unverified !=unverifiable, or we'd delete half of our articles without even checking on Google. But, AFAICT, the existence of the subject IS verifiable. It may be the claims aren't, and without them, it isn't notable - but notability deletions require a consensus to delete.--Doc^g 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a "delete as unsourced" closure. Verification of existence has never been a sufficient reason for an article. Verification means verification of all interpretative claims (i.e. the claims to notability), which has to be done by secondary sources. Elvis Presley's birth certificate does not establish that he was the King of Rock'n'Roll. ~ trialsanderrors 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And re Ryulong, if an unsourced article is deleted as unsourced, ask the closing admin to userfy, see if you can find secondary sources, once you added them ask the closing admin if it's ok to send back or if you're confident about the quality just be bold. If you can't find sources, merge the declarative material into the main article and set a redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 23:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that would be a sensible way to proceed, but of course you can access the deleted content by yourself. I've no objection against a recreation once the article is referenced at least at the level Kimiko Tohomiko now is. Sandstein 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I've recreated it at User:Ryulong/Omi. I'll get Jay (who sourced a lot at Kimiko's) to go about sourcing it, as my memory (and interest) for the series has faded.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, do I need to do a hist merge for this, or what I did was okay?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it ever goes back in article space or transwiki's elsewhere, a history merge will be needed, and can be done then. On userspace, as long as the create (or another early) edit summary says "copyied from ____" that is good enough. GRBerry 04:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per trialsanderrors Bwithh 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and redirect to Xiaolin Showdown or List of characters in Xiaolin Showdown if that page exists Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an overturn for this. Nothing prevents you from creating this redirect right now. Sandstein 08:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass on inline citations for the userfied page. If there's anything else people feel needs a citation or removal please tag with {{fact}} or leave a note on the talk page. The page can be found here. I hope there's enough that the article is no longer considered unsourced. Jay32183 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. A primary character of a notable series is certainly entitled to its own article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But no topic on Wikipedia is entitled to an unsourced article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the userfied version of the page, with inline citations, into article space. I also removed any statement that I thought appeared interpretive but could not cite. If this is acceptable I'll begin citing the other character articles for the series so that afd's can be avoided. Jay32183 00:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well given that 99% of the material comes from primary sources a relisting might be inevitable. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Awkward Turtle – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article should be brought back. Please read the talk page in the article for a lengthy list of reasons - including statistics on its usage in popular media, blogs, social networking sites like facebook and myspace, and hits in search engines. 66.254.233.150 19:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note. linked to the AFD that is the basis for deletion, in which "turtle" was not capitalized. GRBerry 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Valid G4. The reason for deletion in the original AFD was lack of useful sources for an encyclopedia article, with lack of agrement about whether WP:NEO or WP:NOTE was the right guideline to follow. Either way, having a fraction of the content and citing only Urban Dictionary doesn't even put this in the ballpark of addressing the lack of useful sources concerns, becaues UD is not a useful source by our standards. GRBerry 20:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said please read the talk page because I didn't want to post all the reasons here. Since I don't even mention Urban Dictionary, I guess I should post my comments here so further people will read them before deciding to endorse deletion. Soo.. quoting now:

This phrase gets plenty of hits on Google. Seems way over-the-top that it gets deleted, and protected on top of that. People can't even read the history! Call it "obscure" if you want to - but geez, leave it there. Text doesn't take up a whole lot of space you know.

Here is why (today) it should be up:
1. It was discussed live on the Today Show by Katie Couric, and demonstrated by US Olympic Bronze Metalist Evan Lysacek on 2/17/06.
2. There are over 500+ groups dedicated to "Awkward Turtle" on facebook, including two groups with over 8,000 members, and chapters at several schools in several states.
3. The term receives 800+ hits on Google.
4. And 37 videos use the term on youtube, with most describing what the gesture is
5. There are over 400+ posts on blogspot.com using the term
6. There is a radio show called "awkward turtle" airing at Whitman College
7. It gets over 1,000 hits on Myspace
8. People have actually gone and registered awkwardturtle.com, .org, and .net

It's time. Put the page back.

Here are two groups on facebook
8,000+ members http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204996122
7,000+ members http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2205032350

Here is the myspace search
http://sads.myspace.com/Modules/Search/Pages/Search.aspx?t=tms&q=%22awkward%20turtle%22&s=1

Here is the transcript from the Today Show:

COURIC: Well--well, congratulations. I hope you're feeling better, too.
Mr. LYSACEK: I do feel better today.
COURIC: Good.
Mr. LYSACEK: Thank you.
COURIC: All right. Well, Evan Lysacek, thanks so much. It wasn't so awkward. He was doing this awkward turtle thing.
Mr. LYSACEK: Awkward turtle.
COURIC: I don't know what that means, so...
Mr. LYSACEK: It's a classy move.
COURIC: OK, thanks. Thanks for teaching me that today.

Here is the blogspot search
http://search.blogger.com/?q=%22awkward+turtle%22&ie=UTF-8&ui=blg&scoring=d

_{66.254.233.150 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Endorse deletion No new reliable sources presented. Bwithh 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per above. All presented sources are from social networking sites, which are not reliable sources. JIP | Talk 05:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as above. We need real sources. See WP:RS for more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion `'mikka 18:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bronnikov_method – Deletion endorsed, copyvio – trialsanderrors 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is not advertisements masquerading as articles, because this is realy new method that was checked in Institute of Human Brain in St.Petersburg (Russia). You may read about it from this academical state - On the So-Called Alternative Vision or Direct Vision Phenomenon (pdf-file – 600 Kbytes) Vladislavix 17:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Your definition of "not spam" differs from mine, I'm afraid. Blatant advertisement which could not be turned into a proper article without a ocmplete rewrite, WP:CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a copyright violation The first deletion was by Mailer Diablo as a copyright violation of page. The second creation is identical, and is also a copyright violation, so even if the deletion as spam was wrong, it would have to remain deleted as a copyright violation under WP:CSD#G12. GRBerry 04:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, spam can be speedy-deleted, this was properly done. — coelacan talk — 10:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Evil Inc. – Nomination withdrawn, new article created – trialsanderrors 22:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Notable, and verifiable, even if not in the article. The deletion was done in process, and I have no problem with that, but the article was lacking. In particular:

This comic was in the Diamond Distribution catalog.
Has two, published anthologies already:
- Evil Inc Annual Report vol 1. ISBN 978-1-4116-8070-8.
- Evil Inc Annual Report vol 2. ISBN 978-0-6151-3620-2. (Amazon)
Per the author (so needs to be verified) the comic is carried in several newspapers. The Philadelphia Daily News is the largest newspaper to carry these comics. It has a daily circulation of roughly 130,000. Newspaper website

Wikibofh_(talk) 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to work it up in user space, go right ahead. Me, I see one book not on Amazon and the other with a sales rank in the zillions... Guy (Help!) 15:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for a Webcartoonists' Choice Award . a link query in Google shows 92 links back to the WCCA. Also, do the 999 other links to evil-comic.com count toward notability? (I honestly don't know. I'm new to this.) TomXP411 20:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I'd say yes, they do count. Seems to be notable according to criteria in WP:WEB. Wikibofh_(talk) 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which part of WP:WEB? I see no mention of being nominated for an award, or of linkcounts or any other "this number is big" type of arguments. The main thing we're looking for is people, other that those associated with it, writing about this (the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself). Being distributed by the Philadelphia Daily News makes it possible that the subject passes the notability threshold, but third-party commentary is the main thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note 0 (available at bookstores or comic stores). Also nominated (but not a winner of) a 2007 Cartoonist choice award. I recognize that this last one is not a measure of notability unless it wins, or is nominated again next yer. Also, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." seems relevant, since it's published in actual printed media. IMO. Wikibofh_(talk) 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it was nominated for two awards, surely someone has been writing about it. Things don't usually get nominated for awards without notable reviews being written about them. All that's necessary is to find the reviews of or articles about this strip, which would provide the necessary criteria. And soon, because it looks like a few people who got upset over the deletion want to "raise up a stink" about it in their blogs (although blog posts don't usually qualify as non-trivial published works, unless it's a notable blog). LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate per above reasons. Hmmm... isn't salted, so I suppose the user could go right ahead and create a new article if it is significantly different from the old one and they believe they can do it well enough to survive the AfD that would then result from recreating it. Mathmo ^Talk 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, I can undelete it and add the information and cleanup the article...just didn't want to do it out of process. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should withdraw the nomination then and create a new article. An AfD verdict has never been an injunction against a better article, and as it stands, this DRV will end up as "endorsed without prejudice" anyway, since no real challenge against the closure has been made. You're an admin, you should know this stuff. ~ trialsanderrors 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If need be I'll create a new one, but i really feel that it should be restored. It would save alot of time, and the notoriety is sound. Also, here is a quote from Guigar himself about the article

Evil Inc is not a webcomic, it is a newspaper comic strip with a Web presence.
Evil Inc is a daily comic strip that has over 11,000 daily readers (as of Jan. 2007). It is a spin-off of my first comic, Greystone Inn, which was launched Feb 2000. I have been creating a daily comic strip on a Monday-through-Saturday schedule ever since.
Later this month, I will celebrate seven years of creating a daily comic strip. That's over 2,000 comics.
Evil Inc appears in daily newspapers -- as did Greystone Inn -- the largest being the Philadelphia Daily News. It has a daily circulation of roughly 130,000. Newspaper readers are not included in the estimate of daily readers cited above. Adding even 1% of the circulation, though, adds another thousand or so daily readers.
My two other comic projects, Courting Disaster and Phables, appear in newspapers (including the Philadelphia Daily News) as well.
There are two Evil Inc graphic novels, distributed worldwide by Diamond Distribution. They are:
-- Evil Inc Annual Report vol 1, ISBN: 978-1-4116-8070-8
-- Evil Inc Annual Report vol 2, ISBN: 978-0-6151-3620-2
I am also the author of "The Everything Cartooning Book," published and distributed worldwide by Adams Media.
I find the Wikipedia entry on my strip to be a good resource for new readers. I would be very disappointed to see it disappear.

I would also like to note that the article should have merely had an expansion tag attatched instead of being deleted. I'm sure that many editors (including me) would have been willing to do a little research and fix it up. The Shroud 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate I would also like to note that a 3 vote for deletion to 1 vote against is a pretty slim margin for deletion. I'd like to make sure my vote for reinstating the article is counted. If running in a few newspapers isn't "notable enough", I'd liek to know what is "notable enough".

-Tbannist 22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate. Has hard-copy newspaper existence, has 2 books, and apparently has a fairly large following. --Hobit 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-create It certainly sounds like there is verifiable information about the comic strips notability that wasn't in the original entry. It also sounds like there are editors who are planning to add the necessary information once the entry is re-created.--Fagles 01:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-create Seriously, if this isn't a notable comic, what is? Dilbert has a web presence, and I don't see it up for deletion. Betsumei 02:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-create Sources are everywhere also please view my talk page, we have some good points posted up there The Shroud 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact there's a webcomic list, it seems silly to not have an entry for EI. Some of the comics on that list are the definition of trivial and non-notable. However, being part of Blank Label comics makes it (in my humble opinion) a little more notable. This is the label that Scott Kurtz, the creator of PVP (arguably one of the most successful web-only comics) helped create. The Evil Inc anthology is going to be carried by Diamond Books in 2007, and it's apprearing in the Previews catalog. TomXP411 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify since a number users seem to be unfamiliar with DRV protocol, "Recreate" means the deletion is endorsed without prejudice against creating a new article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to forgive some of us who, rather than spending our time editing Wikipedia, have just rallied to the call of one of our favorite cartoonists to appeal this 3:1 decision to delete an article. Undelete the article, if you prefer that phrasing. 69.27.22.2 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should not heed those calls, see the meat puppeteering section in WP:SOCK. Solicited votes are routinely ignored in deletion discussions. ~ trialsanderrors 22:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A, you're just undermining your own side. B, "us?" You're the only one I see here.
    Trialsanderrors, it looks like a meme thing. Someone does something in one way, so the rest follow. I have been involved in DRV discussions before and I was ready to vote "recreate" to mean "overturn." --Kizor 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The new sources and references are impressive. Multiple non-trivial print runs. --Kizor 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The Next One – Contested WP:PROD. AfD optional. – Guy (Help!) 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I deleted this article after its prod period expired. User:Wafulz asked for undeletion, citing the following reason:

Hi, could you restore this article? There are tons of references to it hockey-wise, and it's actually probably the most notably nickname in hockey:

No vote from me. JIP | Talk 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Village School Charlottesville Virginia – No consensus closure overturned, relisted – trialsanderrors 00:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A private school with 60 students which doesn't pass any criteria of WP:LOCAL and the proposed WP:SCHOOL. Although none of the keep !votes provided any valid arguments, the debate was closed by W.marsh as "no consensus". Three websites were added as a source, but none were reliable enough to establish notability. I don't feel it should be merged with Charlottesville, Virginia either. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete, no independent non-trivial coverage by reliable sources presented. This is an article on a different school, self-published by that school, which mentions the subject in two paragraphs as part of a broader argument and even if that doesn't qualify it as 'passing mention', it's clearly not dispassionate, critical material. As for Greatschools.net, it's a directory entry which can be editable by the subject [1], so it's also a directory entry with the option to become a self-published source. While AfD is not a vote, the weight of numbers clearly reflected the lack of notability, and there was a consensus for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Feel free to merge the article to deal with any notability issues. I'll go ahead and do so in a bit unless feels deletion is necessary, but nobody explained why that is in the AFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Sam Blanning. --Core desat 23:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per my comments in AfD2 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - zero sources, zero notability. MER-C 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Sam above. Eusebeus 23:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully reviewed the references cited in the article, and find two articles that appear to be advertising/publicity material, and one that appears to be a directory listing. These are not adequate references. Further, there is no evidence that the school in question is notable. I participate in a substantial number of AfD debates, and contributed to both the debates on this article. I am very familiar with the latitude given to administrators in closing AfD debates, and strongly support this policy, but I was extremely surprised that the debate was closed the way it was, and feel this was inappropriate. Please see my comments in the second AfD debate. I continue to feel that the best conclusion to this debate is Delete. WMMartin 14:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Had I closed this AFD discussion, I would have discounted one "delete" opinion as moot because it was made before the vandalism was discovered (and not corrected or confirmed by the user), one "keep" opinion as a probable troll and would have counted at least one of the participant's comments as too ambiguous to call. After those adjustments, I find a thin consensus to delete from the previous AFD. Rossami (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep with the added suggestion of merging this into the Charlottesville, Virginia page. RFerreira 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus no vote^H^H^H^H consensus was really reached during the afd... it was appropriately closed. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus closure This was within reasonable administrative discretion. Evidence that sources don't exist requires more than them not being present in the article, it requires also evidence of trying to find them on the part of those saying they don't exist. Merging is probably a good solution; the content will get whittled down to appropriate length in the destination article. GRBerry 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aloka meditation center – Deletion endorsed – trialsanderrors 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted on the premise that it is not notable. however this center has appeared in the Sydney Morning herald as being one of only 2 stupas in Sydney which have Buddha relics from bodhgaya. See [2] Please restore Dutugemunu 08:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion unless another reliable source can be found that attests to notability, since WP:N requires multiple sources. If another source can be presented, I'll change my mind. Also, the title of the deleted article was Aloka meditation center, I've changed the headers. --Core desat 08:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete: It is notable and per Dutugemunu. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 18:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and undelete It is a famous buddhist shrine and meditation center in Australia. Also note it is sometimes spelled as Aloka Meditation Centre, instead of Center. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
History comment: follow the bouncing ball now. "Aloka meditation center" was moved to "Aloka temple" which was moved to "Aloka Temple" which was moved to "Aloka temple" which was moved to "Aloka" which was moved to "Aloka temple" which was moved to "Aloka Temple", all by the creating user. We then get a deletion under WP:CSD#A7 by BozMo, plus some redirect deletions under R1. All of this in the first 4 hours and 15 minutes from page creation. In the next two hours, an assertion that a notable subject exists with the "Aloka meditation center" title is created with {{hangon}} tag on top, but no actual article text, and deleted by Jimfbleak. "Aloka" was been left hanging as a redirect to "Aloka temple", so I am going to delete it under WP:CSD#R1 now. Any questions on how we got here? GRBerry 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added links for the place where the actual article content was deleted. GRBerry 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Endorse WP:CSD#A1 deletion by Jimfbleak. This is easy, there was no article text in this version, so no context adequate to support an article. Endorse WP:CSD#A7 deletion by BozMo. Looking at the article, I can't see a claim to notability. If the center/centre is notable, it should be possible to 1) find independent sources, and 2) write an adequate article using only them. If they are cited when the article is next created, it should escape speedy deletion. Take a look at WP:NOTE and WP:CONG if there are questions about what is considered notability. GRBerry 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not voting since I was one of the two admins who speedy deleted this. The article was not deleted because the centre was not notable, it was deleted as per WP:CSD because the article did not assert notability. I do not however have any objection whatsoever to an article on this temple: simply that the article created did not even try to claim notability so qualified as a speedy delete. I advised the article's author to re-write (starting in user space with the drafting) making the strongest claim to notability justifiable and then recreate. I offered to help and am surprised this has ended up here. --BozMo talk 07:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Unless an article has assertion of notability, deletion is just what we do. It's nothing personal against the article authors or the subject of the article. If this temple meets wp:notability policy requirements, then it's probably best to craft the article in userspace, add references, and then move the article to articlespace again, while contacting the admin who deleted, as a heads-up. This deletion does not mean that an article will not be allowed, only that the article as written was not right for Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 10:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Lisa Fury – Non-copyvio version restored and sent to AfD – trialsanderrors 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The original deletion on 2006-12-05 was a result of a prod made by a known sockpuppet of JB196 named BooyakaDell. If its possible to retrive the first deletion of the British female wrestler who has now made a name for herself across Europe. --- Paulley 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy undelete contested prod version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second admin review for copyvio, then undelete A creation after the prod was deleted as a copyvio. However, our original article is older than the page that it was deleted as a copyvio. If another admin agrees with this assessment, please undelete only the versions deleted by PROD. GRBerry 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete and send the prodded version to AFD. Despite the copyvio, it was an attempt to recreate a prodded article, which is a way of contesting the prod. --Core desat 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send to afd as per Coredesat Bwithh 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.