Satellite images censored by Google Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Overturn and delete. Keeps were all "it's interesting," "it's well-trafficked," "featured on Digg" etc. which fails to address the fact that the page is in violation of WP:NOR, which is non-negotiable. - Chardish 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to nomination - The result of AfD#1 was keep. In this DRV, an endorse closure opinion means you believe that the close was interpreted correctly, an overturn opinion means that you believe that the close was interpreted incorrectly or there is substantial new information not available at the time of AfD#1 that should be considered. -- Jreferee 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We also have list of censored (challenged) books, so we can keep this too. --helohe (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Inclusion is not an indicator of notability, please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we don't like, link to some random picture of the book on fire as our singular evidence that the book was censored... --W.marsh 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete, most keep !votes are by IPs, and among all keep arguments, most are WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT, or do not address the fact that the article was original research. --Coredesat 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• sustain and keep the article. The debate was properly closed; there were reasonable arguments presented. As I said at the time, the article is not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship . N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as being an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. W.Marsh objected that if it was "an indication of the extent of censorship it would be "drawing original conclusions from a primary source" But its not the editors who are drawing the conclusion. the reader, using the information assembled by WP , will draw his own conclusions. That's the purpose of all our articles, to provide information. selectivity is necessary, but that isn't OR either--it's needed on all articles.

While useful isn't enough reason for keep, being useless is reason to delete, and therefore explanations of its usefulness were also appropriate. DGG 02:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is no objective criteria for usefulness, which is why explanations of usefulness aren't appropriate. See WP:USEFUL. Furthermore, Google Maps is not a secondary source in an article about Google Maps. The article itself revolves around the claim that Google blurred the images, which is only supported by the secondary sources regarding the images in Basra and India. The rest is simply POV speculation that is drawing original conclusions (that the images were intentionally censored by Google) from primary sources (Google Maps), and the Keep !votes at the AfD for some reason didn't seem to think that's original research. - Chardish 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. If I can get a source for the Basra entry I made in under 15 minutes -- I think others can find some outside sources for the rest of the list. MrMacMan ^Talk 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Question/Comment I want to point out that the user that started this deletion review has also started a image for deletion which seems to be the only image used on the article. MrMacMan ^Talk 04:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Stricken because lacked real relevance to case at hand. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • How is that relevant? - Chardish 05:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only other thing thats used on the page... and it too is up for deletion (also happens to have been posted by yourself as well). MrMacMan ^Talk 05:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The page isn't up for deletion. Deletion review is a judge of the AfD discussion and a referendum on the decision to close the AfD. If the AfD was closed incorrectly, the page will be deleted, but that's because of arguments that were already made, not because of new voting. - Chardish 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what deletion review is... perhaps I brought up something not in the pervue of the review, sorry. removing. MrMacMan ^Talk 06:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. I am unsure on whether this is a worthy topic, but my review of the AFD displays some rationale with merit on the "keep" side as well, by Edison and JWSchmidt among others, providing some sources and arguing why they believed this was not original research. There were a lot of poor reasonings on both sides of the debate, but the end result was well within reasonable bounds. I am not ruling out the possibility of a re-nomination in a few months, but this one does not need to be overturned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and delete per my arguments in the AFD. Wikipedians looking at an image they found on Google maps and claiming it is evidence of censorship is really not good. The only reason this was kept instead of any other potential "things I saw on Google maps" article is that people liked this one. It is the duty of the closer to take such things into account especially when verifiability issues are on the line. --W.marsh 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please remember that... "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." I feel that many editors in the AFD didn't express their views properly, but that consensus was reached. You had problems with WP:OR -- I agree -- we need more sources, but it's not a reason to overturn. I think people can make this better and I think I did with a very small amount of effort when I added a link -- I backed mine up with an article about the problems with Basra and since the publication the Basra image has been censored. I know even that addition needs more work... but it's something that can be worked on. MrMacMan ^Talk 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully... I know what DRV is and I objected to how the closer closed the AFD. Sometimes more needs to be done than a head count. --W.marsh 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware wikipedia is not a democracy and that Polling is not a discussion and WM:PIE. It's just that you referred to your opinion in the AFD and the most prevalent issue you had in the AFD was your concern for WP:OR... which is not something that a deletion review should be considering. (and I will again say that yes, this article needs more sources... but thats not the issue at hand) MrMacMan ^Talk 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And original research/verifiability is one of the things that can overturn the raw numbers at an AFD. The closer, in my opinion, should have taken that into account. I don't really appreciate you trying to make my comment here invalid... this is argumentative. Why aren't you challenging people who've made other comments that the decision was okay/not okay? --W.marsh 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not trying to make an administrators comments invalid! That would, honestly, be a really bad move on my part. I hope it doesn't feel like I'm picking you out individually -- your the only one responding to my comments so its hard to ask other people about their views if they don't respond. I hope my comments aren't mean spirited or put down your opinion... I've always tried to better understand policy and people's opinion without losing my cool. If I have crossed the line - I'm sorry. MrMacMan ^Talk 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per MrMacMan's argument here and Ttiosw's argument at the AfD. It's already partly sourced from BBC, Telegraph etc., and more sources are easily available. Here's one from Australia [1], here's one from Malaysia [2]... It's a notable issue all over the world. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, please read what DrV is about. It's not a "re-vote" or an appeals court, but simply a referendum on the result of the AfD discussion. - Chardish 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I know what DrV is about, have participated in a fair number, and even closed a few. I'm not a wet behind the ears mouse. This particular DrV started with "Keeps were all 'it's interesting'...". That is not true, as I have just cited a Keep that is much more reasonable, and provided even more evidence for it. But even if that were not so, given the basis for this DrV was insufficient quality of the Keep opinions, providing a higher quality Keep seems a perfectly reasonable response. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. AfD is not a poll is a fine slogan, but it is not a realistic standard for contentious AfDs. The fact is that a supermajority of the participants did not agree that it was OR. Moreover, the closer did not explain his/her reading of the consensus, so we are just speculating that it was closed by a simple headcount. In my opinion, there was no other way to close the debate because it was just an "Is!" "Isn't!" shouting match, and the "isn'ts" shouted louder. Maybe a future AfD debate will not go so poorly, or WP:OR will be clarified, but in the meantime there are 6,814,092 - 1 other articles to edit. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Wikipedia works by building consensus. The AfD discussion is supposed to be interpreted based on the weighing of the arguments raised by both sides, with the closing administrator acting as the interpreter of the debate. If the arguments on one side have little strength or ignore Wikipedia policy, then that side should not be yielded to, regardless of how many people agree with those weak arguments. - Chardish 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You perhaps misunderstood my comment. If X people argue "it is OR" and Y argue "it is not OR", and Y > X, then there is no consensus that it is OR. In this case Y is an overwhelming majority, so it might be more correct to read the consensus as "it is not OR". As far as weighing goes, why do you think the closer did not determine that the side calling for delete had weak arguments? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Per Jimbo Wales' instructions, I have begun aggressively removing unsourced locations from the main article. Just an FYI. - Chardish 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chardish, you appear to be acting unilaterally, trying to get your way without consensus, while not even applying the suggestion of one person (Wales is not a god) in good faith. - Davandron | Talk 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am trying to prevent unsourced POV information from staying in the encyclopedia. If the locations in the page haven't been censored by Google Maps, then the information in the page amounts to libel. Protecting against that isn't an action which should require prior approval from any third party. - Chardish 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename: Observations of fact are not original research. However, the article title is an unsupported conclusion (or have the mapping sources admitted to the alterations?) and should be changed. - Davandron | Talk 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Changing the name is a good idea, because some of the gaps may have been for technical reasons. We list particular images as having missing portions; the reader will decide if it amounts to censorship. DGG 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support this plan of action, as long as there are obvious anomalies with the images linked. As User:Ektar pointed out in the AfD, some images are altered but the alterations are not obvious. Furthermore, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between alterations and low-resolution photography. - Chardish 18:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If unclear the image could be included if similar alterations exist on a different imaging source. For example the russian site is censored on google and msn and map24. But in one source it is blured out in one it is low resolution and in another there is a black rectangle over it. --helohe (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but keep is a good idea. --helohe (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Article has sources about the incident, and, unless I'm seeing things, fulfills both WP:N and WP:V, right? Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw the nomination. - Chardish 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since additional commentators have raised points on each side of the issue, the nominator's withdrawal generally is not grounds for early closure.[3] -- Jreferee 20:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn This is a pretty clear example of where some "outside" attention attracted comments from people who don't really understand what is appropriate for inclusion in wikipedia. None of the keep arguments addressed the fact that not one of the list items is cited to a secondary source nor are criteria for inclusion from a secondary source. This clearly violates List Guidelines in a pretty egregious way. Somewhat lively "debate" did go on around whether this is OR or not and the people who made the case that this is not OR did so very poorly. I'm sorry but this keep decision looks like a headcount to me and now that it has moved a little bit further in the process I think you'll see the web 2.0 mob fall away and get some more logical comments.MikeURL 14:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you don't believe the sources for Basra are good enough? I have slowly added a few sources for the claimed statements and it has changed since the time when it was an AfD. It's really saddening for me when people are claiming WP:OR and then I'm finding sources and people are still claiming OR. Can you be one of the few that help us help this article and find sources? They are clearly out there, just waiting to be found. MrMacMan ^Talk 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as no consensus. I think the closing admin was wrong in interpreting the debate as "keep," as it is impossible to unravel any consensus whatsoever from this messy AfD; "no consensus" would have been far more appropriate. I strongly argued to "delete" as unsourced OR, and my opinion still stands, but valid arguments on both sides were drowned out in this case by hundreds of flimsy arguments. Nevertheless, DRV is not an appeals court, and I concede that there was no more a clear consensus for deletion than there was for keeping. It may be best to nominate it for deletion again in a couple weeks if improvement in the huge problems with sourcing is not shown. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Reservations (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Salted film that has a complete IMDB entry with screenshots. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn most recent ones. No comment on the A1s, but the more recent ones appear to be due to notability concerns, except that we don't speedy delete films due to notability issues. AfD is the proper place for this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Guy (Help!) is convinced that if he thinks content will be deleted after AfD that it's okay to speedy it, especially if it's not notable (not a criterion for speedy) or dangerous (also not). I disagree. Guy (Help!), please your deletion and AfD the article properly, thank you. --MalcolmGin 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try not to make this a personal issue, trumpeting previous disagreements does nothing to further this debate. If you disagree with the process of this deletion say so. If you think there is a general problem with someone, then dispute resolution is where you need to be. --pgk 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. but I must have phrased it wrong. The deleting admin has previously expressed that he thinks that articles that would (in his opinion) fail vetting through AfD should be speedy deleted, which this article was. I assume from his deletion comments that the criterion he used for speedy was notability, which is not a criterion for speedy therefore I say this deletion should be overturned. If the administrator wishes to pursue the deletion, I suggest that AfD would be the proper channel. Is that better? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still seems overly wordy and more trying to take the deleting admin to task. (Not to mention the assumption). You basic statement presumably is "doesn't appear to be a valid speedy criteria". My read of your first certainly makes it read that you are objecting because of who deleted it. --pgk 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per pgk, this article was deleted speedily but failed to have speedy criteria. Please undelete and, if article is still believed objectionable, file for AfD. pgk, I do have a problem with the admin who deleted it because I believe his stated opinions are in contravention of current policy, but I will not file any RfC's until I'm very sure what the consequences are of that. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., pgk, if you can spare the time/energy, I'm sure badlydrawnjeff would love to have you step in in his defense when the ad hominems fly in his direction, too. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of defense, and it's also not a case of intervening in discussions (which can get a little heat, though I certainly would say something if I thought a certain line had been crossed), it's about being productive here. To me it was very easy to ignore your original as being little more than taunting and very little to do with the review, I guess it's a question of if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. badlydrawnjeff manages to express his concern for problems without resorting to such. --pgk 05:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. Thank you for the feedback. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn seems there is enough for a stub. Though the sourcing does seem to be somewhat lacking, certainly a lot better than many of the film crystal ball/fan/cruft articles we have. --pgk 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment normal gripe here, I've looked on the deleting admins talk page and can find no attempt at discussion regarding this, nor even a notification of the deletion review. --pgk 21:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just dropped the standard template with explanation on Guy's page. Sorry, I didn't parse your comment properly before, and it seems to me like the filer is pretty unresponsive for a 5-day process. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I expected Guy to show up eventually anyway, and I doubt much discussion upfront would have resolved this, just as I say a pet gripe, I'm sure some of the listings here could be resolved before even getting here. --pgk 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I deleted several copies of this none of which contained any plausible assertion of notability, and none of which had a single independent source. I am confident that once the film is released it will be possible to remedy both. Why the rush to create the article so far before the release date? Wikipedia is not IMDB. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as with previous discussions, it's not the assertion that the article is problematic that I take issue with, but that you seem to think speedy delete is okay when it's clearly not. In this case if you feel the article is delete material, then the article should go to AfD. Period, end of story. If you take issue with that, you should get the policy changed that affects the process as you want to implement it. You should not by any means ignore the policies (or enforce IAR promiscuously) because of your sole opinion. The reasons Wikipedia process cite "consensus" is that, presumably, consensus is important to Wikipedia, not majority or qualified expert in cases like these were the decisions affect larger and larger groups of interested parties. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 22:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Out-of-process speedy. --JJay 22:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted. Based on information here, AfD will likely close as delete. So this was more of an extreme snowball action. However, as more information becomes available, it is almost certain that people will want to create an article on this subject at a later date, so do not salt. --Kim Bruning 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. Sooner than I thought. Overturn and undelete, possibly skipping AFD, based on comments by Starblind below. --Kim Bruning 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, bad speedy. It's starring Catherine Zeta-Jones and apparently finished filming. At this point it'll be notable even if it ends up not being released (which is highly unlikely anyway). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zeta-Jones and Aaron Eckhart - I didn't even catch this. Wow, this was worse than I thought. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, and I would say don't even worry about listing it again. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Salting is way overused; it was never supposed to be applied to every deleted article, just those that were repeated targets for abusive behavior. After all, WP:DP says: "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review." Obviously this can't be done if deleted articles are salted indiscriminately. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thing is, when I first speedied it it had absolutely no claim to notability. And the response to deletion was in every case to simply repost with absolutely no attempt at discussion. Which pissed me off a tad, I admit. And it was mostly the work of a single purpose account, user:Daautodidact, which is an account I think I found through deletion of copyvio image uploads. Plus I get just a teensy bit sick of people creating articles for things that do not even exist yet and for which there are no reliable sources because they do not even exist yet. Since it is apparent that Wikipedia is now a speculative film fan site, and that existence of an IMDB entry means we absolutely must have an entry come what may (even though IMDB entries are generally not independent), I have undeleted it. I look forward to the thosands of independent reviews being added, since for sure all the good editors above would not advocate having an article for which substantial independent sources do not exist. Guy (Help!) 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New information about the band, not available at the time of the AfD discussion, is now available.

• The band is currently appearing in a nationally televised talent search on the Cartoon Network Television Channel and Cartoon Network Website.

• Band member Grant Ellman has received official sponsorship by Canadian cymbal manufacturer, Sabian_(company) and Mapex Drum company, two leading music industry manufacturers. Stampsations 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Stampsations[reply]
  • I have temporarily userfied a copy of the article here, in which you may refer to the original list of sources during its AfD. Closing reviewer may wish to remove this copy at end of discussion. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Would like to see a userfied example of the new information available. --MalcolmGin 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:BuickCenturyDriver, your opinion is more likelty to be more useful to everyone if you can provide reasoning/justification. --MalcolmGin 20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it cites sources on the bottom of the pages, featured on he notable Cartoon Network. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have re-instated the article Still_Pending with the newer information. If I did this pre-maturely, please let me know and I will do whatever is required. Images have been re-uploaded by owner User:David_Ellman at my request with release to the public domain. Since I am new to this process, is this where discussion about the notability of this article should take place, or should it be on the talk page (which has yet to be created)? I was not informed of the AfD discussion the first time around, or I would have participated. Stampsations 03:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article reads like promo material, and that huge quote in the first sections is uncited, which means OR, which is bad. Still, others are more qualified than I to be able to determine notability, and whether the citations used are enough to determine that. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree on the point of citations in the first section. Without them, that section reads like promotional material. I assumed the citations at the foot of the article were sufficient. I added specific citations to that section which should make it more clear that this is quoted from the article. If there are other sections that do not appear neutral or have proper citations, please let me know. I'm still learning. Stampsations 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Added additional news citation to article from Oregonian newspaper David Ellman 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the deletion which means "keep" now that the article is back, Undelete talk page - The article is now back, so the talk page should be undeleted. Now then...I believe that although the article has room to improve, it doesn't seem like promo material. There was no apparent consensus on the AfD IMO; 2 people plus the nominator do not establish a consensus to delete or even speedy delete.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I hope I'm doing this properly. I copied the comment format from above. I have tried to remain out of this discussion since I am the father of one of the band members. I realize that this could appear as biased. All I have done to date is upload photos I have taken of the band which I thought would be useful for the article. I will refrain from commenting with an endorse or overturn, but I would like to bring to light some additional information which may assist others in deciding how to proceed. Today we were contacted by NAMM. The band will be interviewed tomorrow by Radio Disney KDZR in Portland for a 30-minute broadcast about the Wanna Play? campaign that is mentioned on the article. This interview will be aired on Sunday, April 22. I don't know if Radio interviews are acceptable as references, but this appears to be a notable event. Second, the band's original song, Stop Spinning from their CD was played on Portland's 105.1 The Buzz this afternoon. This was the first radio air-play of one of the band's songs. David Ellman 04:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but I really really want to say endorse. Maybe this is a great example of why WP:MUSIC should be amended. It's sad when a band gets coverage because of a schtick (or having 12 year old members). But then again, they do fulfill WP:MUSIC as is, and so the AfD should be overturned. That said, the article needs to be completely gutted, the spam, adverty, and WP:OR elements removed, and proper citations must be provided within the article. Something tells me that once all of that happens, there will be little left of the article. But they do fulfill WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't really understand the statement about a band "getting coverage." Wiki is not about getting coverage, in my understanding. It is about presenting factual information about notable topics. Having 11 and 12-year-old members is not a "schtick." To the contrary, I believe that this is one of the factors that makes the band notable. I was the original author of the article. The original version was modified by several other members. Obviously, I do not own it - it belongs to Wikipedia. I am a relative newbie and it would be helpful if, rather than sweeping statements about spam, adverty and WP:OR, specific sections of the document were referenced to indicate where changes need to be made for it to fit within the parameters of Wikipedia. I am not promoting this band. I am merely trying to provide encyclopedic information which I believe to be notable and useful. I attempted to use neutral voice and steer clear of "adverty" and spam. I am completely open to constructive feedback about what should be changed to improve this particular article, as well as others I may choose to author in the future. If the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, so be it, and it should be removed. Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful work in making this a great resource. Stampsations 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My comment was about the band and media in general, not the article's meeting WP standards (as obviously I voted overturn). I just don't like that a group of eleven and twelve-year old kids are getting coverage by the media as such coverage is simply because of their age, not their talent. I've heard their music, and the only reason they've been in the media is because of their schtick (and yeah, when you get media for something that isn't talent, it's a schtick). Anyway, the reason why I called the article spammy, advery and WP:OR...ey... is because of statements like "having not yet decided on a name for the group, the band was introduced by another student who stated, "the band's name is still pending" and "The website was immediately popular amongst the young audiences of the play." That information is not cited and not immediately gathered through the sources, at least the ones I looked through. My point is that the article needs to be Wikified and statements like the ones above need to be cited, lest they be removed. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about what constitutes talent and what doesn't. There are many many kid bands out there. If age was the only criterion by which they were all judged, you'd have many more kid bands in the media. So why aren't there more? I don't think this is the place for such a discussion, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you for the clarification. Stampsations 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many kid bands out there, you're right. But where you're wrong is that most of them get media coverage and there are quite a few on Wikipedia. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure I can generate at least ten with ten minutes of searching. But you're right as well, this isn't the forum for this kind of discussion. I'm just saying 99% of these bands don't have any talent and get coverage just because they're kids, and I don't like that. Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken this particular discussion "offline" to your talk page. Feel free to comment back. David Ellman 05:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:CARICOM national leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

These were the quasi-cabinet members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) organisation. a.k.a. CARICOM's decision makers. CARICOM IS- the heads of government and one Secrtary General and his small support staff. Hence why it moves so slowly because if a Prime Minister in any territory gets voted out, it is considered a referendum partly on his CARICOM agenda. Example. The Bahamas. I don't know who changed the CARICOM article but CARICOM is not led like the EU. When a leader takes over the presidency. It just means they get to interject their territories agenda. But they have no "EXECUTIVE" power over the whole thing. CaribDigita 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Deletion log shows a valid CfD, and no reason is given to overturn the (unanimous) consensus. -Amarkov moo! 04:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse self, per unanimity on CFD. >Radiant< 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous and persuasive CfD. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Decision as per here was flawed. The EU does have "Category:Political office-holders in the European Union". As far as NATO. NATO isn't all that importaint. That organisation is just about running around looking who needs war support and so on. CaribDigita 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EU category is for people who hold EU positions rather than people who hold office in EU member states. Perhaps it should be more clearly named. Oliver Han 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really see how the decision was flawed (CFD was unanimous), and a statement discrediting NATO doesn't help your case. Endorse deletion. --Coredesat 06:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Oliver Han 21:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Precident If a list of all the churches in a small town can be saved why not a list of ones that each on their own could merit articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.101.179.35 (talk)

I believe our IP nominator meant :List of megachurches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD). I note that no editor at Megachurch has chosen to merge any of the list content into the general article, see discussion at Talk:Megachurch#Redirected from List of megachurches. (I have that article watchlisted.) GRBerry 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to nomination - List of megachurches AfD#1 was closed with redirect to Megachurch and make use of Category:Megachurches instead (or essentially, delete). The issue here is should this close be endorsed, overturned, or other action taken. A DRV overturn opinion here would have the same effect as overturning an AfD delete close. -- Jreferee 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, no deletion took place, AfD does not make binding decisions on merges, any editor is free to revert the redirect if they can get consensus to do so on Talk:List of megachurches. I note that no content from the list seems to have been used in Megachurch, so a second AfD could legitimately result in a delete decision, but again, relisting is up to individual editors. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. AfD was valid, close was correct in my view, and the deleted article was essentially a link farm since most did not have articles and probably never will. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close: I have no objection to useful reorganization of Wikipedia. A sprawling disorganized tree is not what we're looking for. Organizational principles should be upheld. Given the redirect and advice to go ahead with using the related category instead, I don't have an issue with the findings of the AfD, except insofar as I wouldn't call the actual consensus particularly easy to call. Even majority or supermajority is difficult to call. --MalcolmGin 13:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Repudiate close but do not relist. The debate clearly had no consensus. I've absolutely no problem with the merge and redirect and the use of a category, but that's an editorial decision which should be discussed on the talk page and done if consensus emerges (or done unless reverted). However, there is no consensus for that in the debate and allowing the closing remarks to stand effectively means that a consensus is required to undo the merge, when in effect the status-quo is to leave the article unmerged and seek consensus to do otherwise. So the close should be read as 'no consensus' and editors are free to relist, keep or merge as they see fit.--Doc^g 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's note I wouldn't worry, Doc. Closer's opinions on actions secondary to the "keep/delete" binary are always open to reversal through normal editorial processes. I mean, editors should be careful in altering those; but, WP:BOLD permits it, subject to talk page consensus. Xoloz 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the original close decision - The closer interpreted the AfD debate incorrectly. -- Jreferee 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]