Doris Brougham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(history now undeleted per request below) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Deleted unilaterally by User:JzG in a mass purge of anyone connected with Pacific Western University. See deleted article for full list of accomplishements, including highest Taiwanese civilian medal. Considered a household name in Taiwan. Many reliable sources listed in article prior to JzG's unilateral decision. See [1] and this government press release as examples. Articles like this should go on AfD and not be deleted unilaterally. Jokestress 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Deleted unilaterally. Mass purge. Not much evidence of assuming good faith there, I think. Jokestress filled in, in good faith, a number of the redlinks which were added to a list of "notable" alumni of Pacific Western University (widely considered a diploma mill and whose degrees are described by multiple sources as "practically worthless"). A couple of these I have already mailed the text to Jokestress, who says she will take them to Credentialwatch or somehwere, a much better idea.

About this article: she is asserted to have taught English to hundreds of Chinese. She has a degree from the unaccredited PWU. She has received the following awards: King Car Foundation "Schweitzer Award for English Teaching" (2004); Toastmasters International "Communication and Leadership Award" (2004); Business and Professional Women's Club "Candelight Award" (2004); Golden Tripod Award for outstanding contributions to education (1989); Outstanding Educational Promoter Award from the Ministry of Education (1986); Confucius Award (1984); Good People/Good Deeds Award (1983); Golden Bell Award in Educational Radio Programs (1969). If poeple want to send this to AfD I have no particularly strong objection. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article, she has taught "hundreds of thousands." Also started major Taiwanese broadcasting company ORTV (ortv.com) in addition to winning the Taiwanese equivalent of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The lesser awards do not negate her many notable accomplishments. Jokestress 10:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Taught hundreds of thousands, then. Population of China today? About 1.3 billion, isn't it? Plus expats? So. I diagnosed resume padding. Sorry, that's just how I read it. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - ORTV is probably encyclopedically notable, but its quite not a "major Taiwanese broadcasting company". It's a Christian TV/Radio ministry with English language teaching programs. (I've actually watched some of their language programs... had no idea about the religious dimension).[2] Bwithh 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• how can this be discussed without seeing the article? please restore long enough for a discussion DGG 15:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because DRV is about the process, not the article. If there are sources, it doesn't matter what the article said, the speedy should be overturned. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not actually how it works: If there is any good faith request for the content to be reviewed, the page is restored, the ((tempundelete)) sign whacked on it, and it's protected. That way anyone can participate in the discussion and evaluate fully if the deletion debate reflected that actual article, etc.
      152.91.9.144 23:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - notability seems dubious at best, and no rules have been violated. Jokestress, please read WP:AGF. Moreschi 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at afd If the google cached version[3] of the article is just about the same as the deleted version, I can understand why JzG found the article dubious. There is no mention of ORTV, and by far the most apparently important award ("Order of the Brilliant Star with Violet Grand Cordon" - which is not wikilinked too), is buried amongst a bunch of far lesser awards (I mean, Toastmasters International????)) and is not mentioned in the main text. In addition, the tone of the article is inappropriate. Looking at the list of Brilliant Star awardees[4] in the same year as Doris received hers, I still have lingering questions about the exact nature of the award, so I would recommend overturning but listing at afd. Bwithh 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - As per reasons above. Send to AFD if needed. - hahnchen 00:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete No evidence exists to demonstrate that this article should have been deleted via CSD, rather than AfD. Unfortunately, the allegations of a "mass purge" seem accurate, and this seems to be yet another case of this admin inserting his own personal biases into the process, abusing his powers and refusing to deal rationally with the issue. As JzG has stated "If poeple [sic] want to send this to AfD I have no particularly strong objection." This is what people want and is what should have been done in the first place. Alansohn 14:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and AfD per above. I understand why it happened, but it wasn't right. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and afd - per Alansohn. If it's even close, it should be afd. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and afd -- I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that this person was on the speedily-closed List of Pacific Western University article or not. In any event, having looked at the Doris Brougham article's history, I note that multiple editors in good standing worked on this article, including Jokestress (>8000 edits) and Jreferee (>2000). Without going into the letter and spirit of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion Policy, they should at least be given the courtesy of an AfD -- what's there to lose??? --A. B. ^(talk) 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: About the "massive purge" -- I only see two PWU alumni with articles in deletion review: Doris Brougham and Srully Blotnick. Were there any other articles deleted and if so what were they? I can't speak for JzG, but I think it would be natural for him to check out several of the names on the now-deleted List of Pacific Western University people as he was figuring out what to do with that article. Perhaps these two deletions weren't a purge so much as just a byproduct of the list article. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and AfDI cannot find additional sources from outside SPU, although it may be possible for those able to use Taiwanese sources. The material in WP is however supported by the two newspaper citations. She does have a degree outside SPU. (I did find a few bios on the web of people who listed the DB Scholarships in their resume Since her teaching & the awards--if they have the meaning stated--make her notable, they certainly should be able to be documented. The usfulness of an Afd is in reaching those who may know the subject & the language better.

But all this is secondary, the serious question is whether these standards are being applied more strictly than usual because of bias. This, furthermore, is procedural, even if one wants to take the definition of DR in the narrowest sense. To me, not having previously known anything about her or SPU, the discussion demonstrates what I consider to be negative bias. This is one of the deficiencies of unilateral deletion, and fully sufficient for a full AfD.DGG 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srully Blotnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Former Forbes Magazine columnist deleted unilaterally by User:JzG in a mass purge of anyone connected with Pacific Western University. See deleted article for multiple reliable sources, including several New York Times articles and an analysis of the scandal that led to his demise in the Columbia Journalism Review. Jokestress 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Again with the pejorative nomination. This article contained information about the controversial incident which led to his firing, and precious little else. Per WP:LIVING I don't think that's a great start. Maybe I'm wrong. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many biographies are about someone most notable for a scandal. If there's positive stuff (like his many business psychology books), that can be added, but he is best known for the scandal. Jokestress 10:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what we should do is find the non-trivial stories in reliable, independent sources of which he has been the primary subject, then they will have much more biographical detail. Published biographies are usually a good start. Has he been subject of a published biography? Or a profile in a business magazine? I don't want the office on my back, if it's all the same to you. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here ya go. Jokestress 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written by? Incidentally, I have nothing against a new article which gives more context, and I don't mind providing the history to start on it. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Written by the Gale Reference Team at Thompson Gale, as noted in the link. In other words, it's an encyclopedia article, which would suggest we should consider having one, too, at least via an AfD. As Amarkov said above, if an article has numerous reliable sources (as this one did), it should not be unilaterally deleted but should go through AfD. I've never ventured into this little corner of Wikipedia, but things are certainly stacked against disputed articles. Could an admin do proper DELREV templates for this and the article above so they link back to this discussion? Jokestress 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted per Guy. Eusebeus 16:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - yet again, AGF. And yet again little verification and notability seems dubious. Having a job and then getting fired for fraud or misinformation or whatever does not, actually, make you notable enough for Wikipedia. Moreschi 19:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• List at afd Jokestress should refrain from the wild accusations. I can't find the cached version of this article, but based on the new references cited here and a quick google search plus (deep breath) given my experience with the range of opinions about encyclopedic notability contradictory to my own, I would recommend listing at afd (I can be expected to lean towards arguing for deletion however). Bwithh 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - Guy probably is wrong. And dubious as though the notability is, it should be argued at AFD with the content at hand rather than blindly at DRV. We have an undeleteable journalist article at Cyrus Farivar, he's not exactly notable is he? - hahnchen 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, the retention of Cyrus Farivar is absurd. Wikipedians are a slave to the technology press. I'm adding him to my mental list. After the liberation from GNAA, never say never about deletion. Bwithh 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The day we expunge the self-serving, vain, unnotable Mr. Farivar will be a great day for Wikipedia. Eusebeus 09:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with you guys. But this is something that Jimbo has commented on, and like our Fair Use image policy, his word is law. - hahnchen 17:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently we all live under some kind of constitutional monarchy, so while I'm not sure what Jimbo said about Mr. Farivar's article, his word is not necessarily law unless he explicitly waves his special wand of sovereignty +3 (in which case, We must not let daylight in upon the magic etcetera, etcetera...). Bwithh 01:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article will be gone in six months. As will plenty of other vanity articles about Wikipedia editors who happen to have worked for a website at some point or have a blog, people seem to be losing their patience with this sort of cack. Proto::► 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete The argument used as an excuse for deletion of the original article, "Article exists solely to inflate an unaccredited school" see here is a clear demonstration of an admin way out of control who has again imposed his own personal biases, rather than attempting to address any meaningful characteristic of the article that violated any stated Wikipedia guideline or standard. As JzG persistently refuses to properly utilize Wikipedia processes he should be removed post haste from his role as an admin. This has gone on for far too long and caused way too much damage, where admin powers are abused via CSD rather than allowing a genuine consensus to be created -- one way or the other -- via AfD. Alansohn 14:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes -- that's very inappropriate. There are other venues to complain about admins. This is a deletion review, not a star chamber for admins. I disagree with JzG's actions here, but he does good work and nobody's perfect. There are other venues to complain about admins.

• Undelete per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Whenever I see Alansohn calling for someone to be deadminned, it's a sure bet they have made the correct call, and they have indeed. Proto::► 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete -- indisputably notable by current criteria. See the links and article excerpts I just left at Talk:Srully Blotnick. Blotnick is mentioned in ten NY Times articles. At least 7 were more than passing mentions and were primarily about him or one of his books. In one article, he's described as "best-selling". In another, the Times noted his books had sold over 100,000 copies. Like this person or not, he far exceeds the current notability guidelines. I did not even bother to search the Wall Street Journal or other publications' archives. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete -- The NYT article works for me. Everybody makes mistakes. Just make sure they're not tattoos. --Bobak 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ouch. I'll remember that. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete. Here I have some idea of the subject, and the fraud is notable enough and certainly verifiable enough to merit an article about the perpetrator. Again, the procedural grounds are sufficient--possibly unfair use of unilateral process is a reason for the AfD. I have not looked at the previous work by any of those involved, and I agree it is not relevant here one way or another. But when the discussion gets personal, as all the above surely demonstrates, wide participation is necessary to avoid bias. DGG 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Nintendo Nerd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

Wow! You guys closed the topic in record time without even letting me respond! Way to show your Wikicowardice, guys!

Now let's actually try debating me instead of what you guys usually do which is ignore every point I make and provide absolutely no argument because admitting you're wrong hurts your Wikipride.

• Endorse deletion, again. "By every conceivable measure" - no, the only conceivable measure, which has been repeatedly explained, is multiple independent reliable sources, none of which you have presented. No-one cares about the Google test and the Furious Famicom Faggot isn't even explictly a parody of this website, not that it would establish notability if it was. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • No multiple independent sources! So, according to you, Google [[5]], Alexa [6][7], Something Awful [8][9] [10] [11], youtube[12] (265,103 views by the way), and mentions in seven other languages including German [13], Japanese [14], Spanish [15], Swedish [16], Dutch [17], French [18] and Hebrew [19] aren't multiple or independent! So, how many more do you need? Apparently the standard for this article is light years ahead of most so I need to know how many millions of people do you require to have seen a person who talks about video games to attain your standards?

• Read what Sam wrote. What's required is that this has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. None of what you posted is non-trivial or reliable (or even demonstrably independent in some cases). Guy (Help!) 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Notability does not imply verifiablility, and you must have verifiability. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What source do you require regarding reviews of old video games? This is an internet related phenomenon. He's already been parodied on Something Awful, which is one of the most popular internet humor sites on the web. Does he need to be mentioned in the New York Times? Please specify the standard so I don't have to keep bugging you people.

• Endorse deletion - No new information. Notability/verifiability is not message with Ghits and Alexa. Wickethewok 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, if you can even be bothered to read it, it clearly says regarding the google test for example It should be realized that on highly specialized, yet suitable topics the number of hits might be much lower than for more well-known subjects.

I honestly don't know the insane standard you people have put upon somebody who reviews video games. Again, specify it please so I won't waste any more of your precious time.

• Endorse deletion. While I am a fan of the Angry Nintendo Nerd, there's nothing new offered here that presents verifiability or notability. Something Awful making fun of someone is also not an indicator of notability. DRV is not AFD part 2. --Coredesat 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. A mention on Something Awful isn't a measure of notability, I've already provided many of those, it's a measure of verifiability. This is an internet humor related article and Something Awful is the most prominent site regarding internet humor. If that's just not good enough then give me an example of what you would reasonably want. Don't tell me it has to be mentioned on CNN. What publication do you want him mentioned in before you'd accept it on this site? Does he have to be in a game magazine? If so, why? Millions of people have seen him but it's not "official" until Gamepro has featured him in an article?

The overriding theme I've noticed in this debate and the one regarding the articles related to the Adventure Game Studio is that if topics are popular on the web but aren't featured on television or a magazine then it isn't "notable" or "verifiable". I don't know if you guys have seen the cover of the latest Time magazine[20] but things are changing. This isn't like the 1980's or early 90's when things were only popular if you could find it in a library or it was mentioned on television. The ironic thing is Wikipedia is a part of this change and yet you guys are the most blind to it.

Richard Cane 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the results of the DRV for this that was literally just closed (03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)). Also, strongly encourage sanction of the initiator for violation of WP:POINT. Serpent's Choice 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't let me respond and look at the other topics. They get to stay open and the people get to respond and yet not one thing I've ever said is ever addressed by people like you. What gives you people the right to ignore me when all I've done is try to argue a point? You just write pithy one line smartass replies and then try to "sanction" those who just want to do what this place was created for. Richard Cane 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as in June, October and just yesterday. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikiendorse wikideletion because wikiadding "wiki" to wikiall your wikiwords doesn't wikimake wikiyou wikiless wikiwrong. Wikidanny Wikililithborne 12:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. You need reliable sources. You don't have reliable sources. And Wikipedia is not a vehicle for change, sir. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Irascible Professor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(deleted history)— (AfD)

This article was deleted with apparent disregard for the consensus to keep. Furthermore, the reason for deletion (no substantial case for notability), appears to ignore the discussion in which two third-party reliable sources were presented to satisfy WP:WEB. Overturn. dryguy 16:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (my own) deletion. The two 'sources' referred to, [21] and [22] are trivial mentions; the first merely cites the blog as a source and the second recommends reading a particular post from the blog (it is not a review of the whole blog) halfway down a very brief article. Apart from that the AfD contained the usual 'this Google number is big' and other assorted armwaving. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. What is it with the feeling that an article must be kept if there is any reason to believe someone might be theoretically able to source it at some undetermined point in the future? Unsourced things get deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - AFD is not a vote and - quite frankly - no reliable sources, no verifiability, no article. Moreschi 19:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]