Retarded Animal Babies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|DRV)

I would like this page to be unprotected from recreation and then restored for the following notability:

• The series appears on G4's Late Night Peepshow. That means it is published by a source independant of the website (Newgrounds) and of the creator, and therefore meets WP:WEB.
• The creator of the series (David C. Lovelace) was hired by "Weird Al" Yankovic to make a music video for his song "Virus Alert". Weird Al specifically discusses David Lovelace and Retarded Animal Babies in interviews about the song and video. The Retarded Animal Babies themselves also make appearances during the video, meaning that they are again published by an independant source.
• The cartoon is a current internet phenomenon
• It has been released on two different DVDs (though through the creator)
• It has its own merchandise sold on CafePress.com Helltopay27 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep deleted, these are the very same things presented last time (only three weeks ago, might I add), and they were all found on several copies of the same press release. These were found not to be good enough for notability; you need multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. --Coredesat 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn televised on a national network for petes sake... working for weird al! that certainly passes the bar for inclusion.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We knew this before. It was determined through the endorse result of the last AFD that that wasn't enough. --Coredesat 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Which doesn't make sense: On a Weird Al video and on G4 television, which are reliable (i.e. they're basically mainstream), multiple (more than one), and independant of Dave Lovelace. Seems like it fits to me.
    • Hell, it's even on the IMDb, another non-trivial and independant source. Helltopay27 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure of both the AFD and the recent DRV discussion. All of these facts seem to have been well known and discussed in the previous discussions. They failed to sway the community. I'm not seeing any grounds to overturn the previous decisions. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion (speedy?) same reasoning as a couple weeks ago when we last went over this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 1794.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as being an image that also existed on Commons [1]. Commons recently deleted it as a copyvio [2] but Jimbo has described it as a "free image" [3] and he's always right, right? Nardman1 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen the image, but from the descriptions I've read of it as a fan-made version of the Mystery Machine, I don't see how it could be a copyvio because of the significant amount of creative effort put into making something like that, which would be eligible for a separate copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 103 (See congressional commentary [4]. Derivatives are only legal if copying the original to make the derivative was legal. The congressional commentary indicates that even if the only rationale available is fair use it's still legal). Nardman1 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Jimbo would have been referring to the tag on the image at the time, not making a legal analysis of the situation. If it is a derivative that doesn't grant exclusive copyright control to the person making that derivative, the original owner still has an interest and hence it cannot be released under a free license. --pgk 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think DRV is even remotely the place to have copyright discussions. I don't deal with images often, but I'd assume IFD is (or some similar process). So, with that said, I think it needs to be undeleted and put up for discussion at the most appropriate venue, whatever that is. It's definitely not a clear black-and-white issue, at least from my understanding of copyright. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that place is commons. It is either a free image or it isn't, we can't have the ludicrous situation that we accept it as a free image whilst commons declines it. --pgk 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's very true. Has the picture's deletion been discussed at commons at all? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that I'm aware of. Although it is very possible we could accept this as a free image and they don't, since they would claim a derivative under a fair use rationale was still unfree. It should be noted this image was slated to be on the main page on 12 April 2007, so there is a time constraint here. I would argue for its temporary undeletion on three grounds 1) Commons appears to have deleted it on the action of a single admin, without discussion, 2) we're going to need a main page picture on 12 April, and 3) I would argue Jimbo didn't just rely on the image tag. I would argue he made an off-the-cuff determination that an actual physical van someone made wasn't a copyright infringement of a cartoon. Nardman1 18:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A derivative, citing fair use, is by definition "not free". We sometimes accept them (per our fair use policy); commons never does. My question is whether this is, in fact, a derivative work under copyright law and can effectively be released under a free license. If it's a derivative work, it cannot, period. Wikipedia could accept it as fair use, pending discussion over whether fair use is properly asserted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about undeleting the image, allowing me to write a fair use rationale, and then immediately listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Fair_use_claims_needing_a_second_opinion? The experts regularly troll (in the fishing sense) that page. Nardman1 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would say the best course of action is to go through Commons's review processes to determine whether it is in fact a derivative work. If the review confirms that it is a derivative work and cannot be hosted on Commons, then I'd say you can try to assert fair use and then we can have a discussion about that. I'm unconvinced about whether this is a derivative work (IANAL, YMMV, etc.), so if it can be released under a free license, that's the best choice. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turns out their derivative image policy is incredibly strict commons:Commons:Derivative works...much stricter than our rules here. If it were undeleted here I could write a convincing rationale for allowing it. Nardman1 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Submitted to Commons. commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:IMG_1794.JPG Nardman1 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, guys, this isn't a drawing of a mystery machine, it's a photograph of an actual van painted to look like it. The van may be a trademark/copyright infringement, but the photo is a wikipedia:fair use per things like ((statue)) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair use depends on it's use. Where and how was it used? Rossami (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To illustrate what a fan created van looks like and that it exists, just like we use a picture of a statue to illustrate what it looks like. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what page and section was that? Rossami (talk)
        • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scooby-Doo&oldid=118187517#Merchandising, among others. The image is fully compliant with our content policies, it's only unfree when considered under commons's stricter ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a bit vague. I hope you mean we can potentially use it unlicensed under the fair use doctrine, assuming their is critical commentary on the image and a valid raionale is provided. We permit the same free licenses as commons, if an image is a derivative from the copyright perspective is determined by copyright law rather than wikipedia policy. The status of if it is validly licensed under the GFDL (say) does not vary depending on where it is posted. --pgk 14:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See also the logs on Wikipedia and Commons.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD 1, AfD 2)

Overturn and delete - nominator wrongly closed as no consensus. The !vote count was 2-1 in favor of deletion and the keep reasons basically amounted to "there are other articles like this one" and "without this article people will add bad stuff to the main article." These are not compelling reasons to keep in the face of 66% in favor of deletion. Otto4711 14:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The weight of argument against deleting seemed quite strong, and even one delete suggestion noted the possibility of a merge, implying that the information may be useful. Nothing's stopping you from merging the information as it stands - there's nothing wrong with this article as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is strong about "Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort", especially in light of the huge numbers of deletions of articles of this sort? While one of the deletes mentioned the possibility of a merge (and only under specific circumstances), one of the keeps was expressly based in the editor's opposition to a merge. Otto4711 14:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the strength comes from the fact that there's plenty of information available that would overwhelm the main article, and that we have evidence that such articles can be maintained in a way that is of high quality to the project. In my opinion, the content is more important than anything else currently, so, again, nothing wrong with you performing a merge with some input from others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that some similar article might be maintained strikes me as a rather dangerous argument. For every article that's deleted one could probably find multiple similar articles which are well-maintained. Adopting the reasoning that because a similar article has been done well nominated articles should be kept would effectively halt AFD. I have no interest in performing a merge because I don't believe that any of this trivial information belongs in the main Sammy article. Otto4711 14:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly, the argument can be dangerous. It doesn't mean it always is, however, nor does it mean that every article of every type is appropriate. Just because we should generally ignore the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments doesn't mean it's not necessarily valid at times. I think this is a good compromise - it retains the information and keeps it out of the main article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Accepting for the sake of discussion that an invalid argument might sometimes be valid, no one has yet shown that ignoring OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid for this article. If the only reasons offered for keeping articles are arguments which are by and large invalid, that does not speak to a strong answer to the deletion arguments, or, really, any answer to the deletion arguments. Otto4711 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - 2 to 1 is a reasonable consensus, and the arguments for deletion are much stronger. This article is full of OR trivia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete consensus seems reasonable clear. However current pet gripe, there doesn't appear to have been any discussion with the closing admin on this, nor notification of the review. --pgk 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, sorry, I forgot to put the notice up. Got distracted by something shiny. I have added my notice to yours on the admin's page. Otto4711 19:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - per everyone else: one also has to be bear in mind what consensus has consistently been as regards this type of article recently. Basically, a random collection of unencyclopedic "facts" should not be strung together in this manner merely so people don't have to bother with pruning junk from the main article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The first deletion discussion was properly closed as "no consensus". The renomination was a month later and did specifically note that no clean-up had occurred in the intervening time. One month seems short to me, so I think it's appropriate to consider both discussions together. After consolidating (and de-duplicating) the arguments, a closure of the second discussion as "no consensus for now" seems to be within reasonable admin discretion. Endorse closure but without prejudice against a clean renomination if the "keepers" have still failed to clean the page up in, say 3-6 months. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, delete. Keep and clean up is a common cry on AfD; people should put their money where their mouth is. Plus, this is an "in popular culture" article, and they always suck royally. This is no exception. The way to fix an over-bloated "in popular culture" section is to prune it, not to split it out into a non-article full of dross. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Of course some of the information might be useful; I don't think that was in dispute. What was disputed was the need for a seperate article for cultural depictions of the guy, and most arguments against that were either "But look at these other articles!", which is invalid, and "But then people will add the stuff to the main article!", which makes no sense. I don't understand how someone can think that information which is inappropriate should just be sent to a seperate article. -Amarkov moo! 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jeff. Everyking 11:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete This sort of article should not exist. Just because such flabby and trivial articles can be written, it does not follow that they should be. Nathanian 00:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

Okay, so this page was speedied in 2006, overturned here some time later, speedied again, overturned again, and AfD'd. The weighting of arguments, frankly, was done poorly - standards were met across the board as demonstrated, did not violate any important policies. Overturn and undelete, there's simply no consensus for deletion here whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC) badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - perfectly reasonable, well-explained closure well within admin discretion. Looking at the AfD, I see a lot of ILIKEITs, and only really substantive opinions from those voting delete. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So noting the existence of multiple reliable sources and notability is not substantive? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were any reliable sources that implied any sort of encyclopedic notability in the first place...Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which there were, thus the overwhelming overturn and the massive agreement at the AfD affirming as such. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blogs, message boards, and her own website? Not by me. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "blog" in particular was widely agreed to be a reliable source for what was going on by most editors involved. And yes, her own website is a reliable source. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your own website is not a reliable source per RS and N, otherwise WP would be awash with vanity. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I suggest re-reading WP:RS then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your own website is not a reliable secondary source, and should not be treated as such. It can possibly be used to confirm data, but not to assert notability. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Agreed. So what's the problem, again? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Quite apart from anything else, her literary agency being rated one of the worst twenty by this organization is argument for notability of her literary agency, not her. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I disagree with that. But, then again, that's one of the many reasons why there really isn't a consensus to delete here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Notability by association is, for the most part, not notability at all. She seems mostly "notable" for having a crap literary agency. That agency might well be notable: but she isn't. How on earth are we meant to have fair and balanced article on her that meets BLP? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Notability by association is still notability. As for how we can have a fair and balanced article that meets BLP, I'd start with looking at the deleted article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Jeff, just because my grandfather is notable doesn't mean I am. The deleted article consisted of: "This woman exists. She runs a crap literary agency. OMG. The End." That is not fair, balanced, or BLP compliant: interesting to note how the crapness of her literary agency took up most of the article. It's unlikely ever to be BLP compliant, because this woman just isn't notable. Her agency may be, but that's another story. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • It could be balanced out if you see a problem - plenty of primary material to flesh out the bio, after all. but yes, association is notability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as a clear violation of consensus and an abuse of discretion. No, AFD is not a vote, but that isn't an excuse for the closing admin to simply ignore all discussion and impose their own preferences. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I just knew this was coming - it was inevitable no matter how the AFD closed. Well-reasoned close and a proper weighing of the arguments by the closing admin, who I emphasize is more than just a rubber stamp on deletion debates. AFD is not a vote, and it is the burden of the closing admin to weigh the arguments carefully. I see no problem with his reasoning, and the article had overwhelming WP:BLP and WP:NPOV problems to begin with. --Coredesat 19:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion reasonable and well explained closure. --pgk 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as within reasonable admin discretion and commend the closer for a well-reasoned and exceptionally well-documented decision. Rossami (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, which was well explained. I can't make up my mind whether we should or should not have an article on this person; her sole claim to notability comes in the shape of a characterisation which is very hard to tie down to more than one source. I certainly don't endorse the idea of having an article just because she doesn't want one, or indeed deleting it for the same reason. Ultimately I think we need more independent sources for the claim of notability, per WP:BLP. So I agree with the close, even if I am unsure whether I personally would like to see an article on this person (I probably would, I rather like articles that document the exposure of charlatans). Guy (Help!) 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean notability by WP:BIO? Kla'quot 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me her claim to notability is her cabaret appearances and her academic degrees. People have had plenty of time to dig up other notable things she's achieved, and that seems to me to be the limit of it. By all means correct me if I'm wrong. I personally am impressed by her having a doctorate from St. John's University, but don't see how she passes the "average professor" test... since is not, in fact, a professor. What other claims to notability are there? Initiating a civil lawsuit? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I don't know if a better close could have been had, both in terms of transparency and strength of argument. The bottom line is that BLP is non-negotiable policy, and, at present, no article can be written that isn't an attack piece using questionable sources. I hold no prejudice towards article recreation should enough reliable sources arise to enable us to write a neutral article. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, I feel that this was certainly within administrator discretion, and the fact that it was so well-explained leaves me in no doubt that this was not a close made hastily. Seems the right close to me, but then again, I did !vote delete...take that as you will. Daniel Bryant 00:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The closing admin explained his decision carefully. In this matter the "keep" voters did not indicate how the subject was notable. The filing of a lawsuit has not, so far, resulted in the subject being noted in any reliable secondary sources. Inclusion on a list does not make a person notable either (Nobody else on that list has a WP article). WP:BLP calls on us to take extra care with biographies of living people. Should the subject become significantly more notable in the future we'll certainly have an article on her. -Will Beback · † · 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Notability might have been proven, but if it was, it is very borderline. When most information is thoroughly negative, that is not enough. -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm again stunned by our ability to close our eyes whenever something potentially scary comes around. no one's saying the closure was hasty, simply that it was incorrect. Why people are defending this outcome is beyond my belief at this point - affirming improper closes simply proves further how broken DRV is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... does it occur to you that maybe, when the result you like doesn't happen, it's because people disagree? Seriously, what is with this "I don't get what I want so the process is broken" mindset? -Amarkov moo! 01:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not when it comes to issues like this. This is absolutely what's broken about the system - it has nothing to do with "what I want" - what I want rarely occurs. It's when we consistently abandon standards and guidleines and policies when things get uncomfortable that there's a problem, and this is a very clear example of that. The original deletion was overwhelmingly overturned, and consensus was very clearly on the side of keeping and the arguments were sound. Instead, we're trotting out the line that completely defies reality. How is this a net positive for the project? How is this proof that this is working? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, precisely. People disagree. Large numbers of people making good arguments on each side of the disagreement. Therefore, I think it is pretty plain to see that there is no consensus, and according to WP:DP, articles should only be deleted at AfD if there is consensus to delete. I don't see that in this case. I see an administrator who was convinced by the arguments of one side that he should ignore the arguments of the other side. That isn't consensus. JulesH 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a solid close decision. I felt the references were weak, and beyond being listed on a rather subjective list, the subject really didn't, in my opinion, meet notability. The decision was definitely well within the closing admin's discretion, and the explanation seems reasonable. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and commend the closer not only for being astute, but for doing the community the courtesy of a fully explained rationale. When serious BLP issues arise on low-notability article, the default should certainly be to delete.--Doc^g 02:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Leave aside the fact that this was one of the most comprehensive closes, the question to ask about any deletion is: was it correct? The answer here is yes. This gossipy scandal-rag of an article constituted a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia, and its continued retention for so long is a black mark on our reputation as an encyclopedia. Let's not do this again. --Tony Sidaway 07:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with the idea that BLP prohibits this kind of article, and I hope this doesn't become a precedent for deleting other negative bios. In this case though, the notability arguments were very weak. If someone were to create an article on someone whose notability was entirely based on being in a "20 best literary agencies" list and having fans rave about her on blogs, we'd be deleting it faster than Superman on crack. Kla'quot 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. If a well-known professional writer's association gave such an honour to an agent, I think Wikipedia should have an article on that agent. Why shouldn't we? JulesH 17:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the agent actually placed first, i.e. was the winner of an award, I would agree that it is a valid reason to keep under the provision of "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." However, placing somewhere on a list of best to twentieth-best would not qualify. Kla'quot 03:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. On examining the deleted article, I find it to be a perfect example of Weregerbil so usefully calls calls a coatrack: "a Wikipedia article that obstensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the 'coats.'" This is not an never was an article on the topic of Barbara Bauer; it always was about the "bias topic" of SFWA names Barbara Bauer as among Top Twenty Worst Literary Agents, or possibly Barbara Bauer's Lawsuit against SFWA. Beyond the complaint, the original article said nothing except to identify her as a literary agent. Over the editing history, basic facts about her educational history and cabaret career were added, none of which would have justified an article in the first place. The article is a coatrack for criticism of Bauer, in fact criticism by a single source. I don't think SFWA's naming her among the twenty worst literary articles qualifies as notability (do we have articles about the other nineteen?). On reviewing the AfD discussion I am not impressed by the "keep" arguments which mostly simply assert that she is notable or controversial or passed WP:BIO without explaining why. The article is also marred by verifiability problems. The fact that she is suing SWFA is sourced, but all of the sources for the claims that she's a dishonest agent are borderline. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how an official warning published by one of the most important professional associations operating in the industry in question can be considered "borderline". The source is perfectly adequate for the claim it makes. JulesH 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, undelete - follow the decision of the people who participated in the AfD. The closing admin's opinion is worth no more than that of any of the people participating; the opinion of the group is what counts. Or at least it's what should count. Everyking 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opinion of those who turned up at the AfD is irrelevant next to the demands of policy, particularly BLP. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are matters of interpretation, and I prefer for the community to interpret them than for individual admins to do so. Everyking 11:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why should AfDs be closed by admins? Why can't they just be closed by "the community?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everyking, I can see where you're coming from, but the community has expressed a kind of super-consensus, as it where, in policies such as BLP and NPOV. Given that it's almost exclusively admins who close XfDs - when it needn't be, we could have non-admins closing and then adapt CSD for the purpose - it seems as though it's part of the job of admins to enforce policies like these at XfD: and in this case no one during the AfD addressed the BLP problems surrounding this article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone needs to implement the community's decision, that's all. Everyking 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Attack page "sourced" with things like blogs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, undelete The balance of the AfD was quite clear, not just in numbers but in arguments. If some of the references failed WP:RS, they should be researched and improved - don't throw out the baby with the bath water.--Runcorn 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the references are not reliable, they, and the content they support, should be removed from the article until they have been researched and improved. When you do that, what you have is a legitimate biography—of a person whose main achievements are appearances as a cabaret singer and a Ph. D. dissertation from St. John's on Italian-American writers of the New York area. Is that the "baby" you are referring to? Or is the "baby" you're referring to essentially the story of a dispute, with a few sentences of "biography" acting as a figleaf to mask the true purpose of the article? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There were no references that even implied notability. Just a couple of blog mentions and that top twenty thing, which at most makes her agency notable. The closing explanation was perfectly reasonable.--Dycedarg ж 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Well reasoned close, especially for the reasons noted by Dpbsmith and Tony Sidaway, but also those advanced by Coredesat, JzG, and Rossami, among others. A not-so-borderline attack page effectively. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The blog source is a publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an extremely well-known and respected professional body, hence a reliable source. There are no BLP violations here, nor are there NPOV violations: the only opinions that have been presented in reliable secondary sources are negative, therefore a negative tone of the article is to be expected. As to notability, the deletion was unable to take into account new secondary sources: [5] [6] [7]. SFSite is a well respected newsletter in the science fiction community; Ansible is an award-winning publication; Publisher's Lunch is an extremely well known publishing industry magazinenewsletter. I feel these three sources should be more than enough to confirm notability, even if it is constrained to the narrow field of professional science fiction writing and the publishing industry. JulesH 17:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (corrected JulesH 17:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

All three of those sources are short mentions of the lawsuit; I'm not sure that does a lot to advance her notability. As to the fact that all of the opinions in secondary sources are negative, ArbCom did discuss that kind of topic in the Rachel Marsden case, and the findings of fact indicate that unbalanced articles are subject to speedy deletion, especially when they have BLP implications. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting policy is outside ArbCom's purview. The community's accepted definition of an attack page is at WP:ATTACKPAGE. Kla'quot 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia:Attack page is only concerned with pages that attack other users, not with article-space biographies. The policy statement at WP:CSD#General criteria is better:

• Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.

However this article wasn't unsourced, strictly speaking. -Will Beback · † · 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article, I believe, is that it was sourced in an iffy manner, and all of the sourcing leaned negative. That was the problem with the Marsden article originally. After a speedy, a big fight and general mayhem, it's now got sources that are more reflective of a neutral point of view. If the Bauer article can be neutrally written and sourced, and indicate notability outside being listed on someone's naughty list. then I'm sure it'd be fine to be rewritten. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how sourcing it from a well-respsected professional association can be described as "iffy". The sourcing leaned negative because, as far as those of us editing the article could tell -- and we did put a lot of effort into finding out -- there are no reliable secondary sources about the subject that aren't negative. It would, in fact, be a violation of NPOV to make the article too positive in tone under these circumstances. JulesH 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a clarification, Wikipedia:Attack page applies to both article-space biographies and pages on users. Kla'quot 05:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PESWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD, RfD)

PESWiki is about free energy Altermike 07:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse deletion, no reason for reviewing the deletion given. Daniel Bryant 07:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Overturn deletion of redirect per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 27#PESWiki → Free energy, a recent RfD which was closed as no consensus. Daniel Bryant 07:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This page should be reinstated immediately as it has recently passed a review at Redirects for discussion. __meco 07:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of nonsensical redirect. The fact that the PESwiki people have spammed their name all over the place does not justify maintaining a redirect to an article which does not mention PESwiki. A redirect to snake oil would be as appropriate... Guy (Help!) 08:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has been deleted out of order. It should be reinstated, and if anyone then wishes to make another try at deleting it this should be done at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion properly. __meco 09:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, RfD should be held up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion unreasonable redirect in substance.DGG 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How much fuss about nothing... Free energy has nothing about PESWiki and therefore the redirect is not needed. If someone wants a redirect to List of wikis... go ahead. Would make so much more sense. Renata 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the rfd result and delete. Arguments for keeping there are nonsensical and should have been ignored. —Cryptic 13:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, this is a completely unreasonable redirect to an article that doesn't mention it at all. A no consensus close is not the same thing as keep; no consensus simply means "do nothing", and there is not supposed to be any prejudice against a future deletion. --Coredesat 19:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion pointless redirect. --pgk 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy-deletion of the redirect versions only. Speedy-deletion was clearly out-of-process given the prior discussions. However, I recommend an immediate relisting to RfD. Several of the comments in that discussion make me suspect that it was not properly considered. Rossami (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Feh, process for process' sake. The article was part of a spamming campaign, the redirect makes no sense as the wiki is not mentioned in the redirect target, nor should it be. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, pointless redirect, can only serve as a staging post for further spam. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close this DRV listing. The nomination has no valid arguments. Corvus cornix 07:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, don't speedy close it. The existance of a prior, recent RfD is a perfectly good reason to open a DRV. Daniel Bryant 09:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudeva Vagish Shastri

Still in Modification Process Vagyoga 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I was new to make a page on wikipedia. I am a Professor of Statistics, I get lesser time to modify it and it was in the modification form. The article was on a new technique which is followed all over the world. (See. www.vagyoga.com) This technique is yoga of speech which has application in Sanskrit Grammar and Kundalini Yoga. I strongly recommend it to relist so that I can expand this article as per Wiki Criteria.
Reason 1 : I was not knowing this fact that user name and the page name should not be same.
Reason 2 : Editor found non-IP editors, I am unable to understand this?
Reason 3 : It has reliable sources ( This is my main and strong point )
--Vagyoga 07:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vagyoga. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.[reply]

• Endorse deletion, spam, valid AfD, conflict of interest in evidence. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse, no new information presented. Vagyoga's only argument for undeletion is that he didn't like the 100% consensus of Wikipedians to delete his spam. —Cryptic 13:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, conflict of interest, sock puppetry, spam in evidence. Buddhipriya 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• New Technique in evidence. I am unable to understand "spam in evidence" --Vagyoga 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion valid AfD, and blatantly obvious WP:COI issues. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attention Editors

I told several times that I was new for making a Page. I have interest in
Sanskrit, Local languages of Northern, eastern and western regions of India, Sports, Mathematics, Instrumental music, Computational techniques etc.
I made a page (gave information) about a invented technique VAGYOGA This is my first project in Wiki, though I was a good reader of Wikipedia for last three years, I have gone through many books of this technique. Whose geniune reference is given in my maidon page. Fact There are several followers of this technique and by that they are able to speak Sanskrit which is rare in India. By Vagyoga : Mnemonic Sanskrit one becomes free from Panini's typical grammer. Panini grammer is so vast, hence one is not able to follow Sanskrit grammer.

• • • In AFD an editor Buddhipriya wrote he has found only nine hits on "Gurudeva Vagish Shastri". Whereas respected Buddhipriyaji if someone like to search for Sir Sunil Gavaskar he will simply search for Sunil Gavaskar. For your kind notice if any one searches for Vagish Shastri he will get more than 600 hits (including news papers The telegraph [8][9][10] among others) as I told in AFD. ****Clear to say my article is intended for the Vagyoga technique only.
      

Thanks to all whether making garbage of my first Wiki-article or giving suggestion so that I may improve this article. --Vagyoga 05:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weekinthewoods.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing administrator chose to close this image as keep, because apparently things like this are just swept under the rug. [11] [12]. This image fails fair use in any number of ways, including not having proper source data, merely being used to illustrate what the book looks like with no critical commentary, no rationale as to how this is irreplaceable with a free (or more free) image (take a picture of the author at a book signing for instance), no copyright data. Uploader has had more than adequate notice to add this information, making it eligible for speedy deletion under csd I7. Nardman1 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. This is the same guy who spent weeks trying to get the book the article illustrates deleted. We use book covers in infoboxes on articles about books. It's been upheld and cleared hundreds of times already, two people (one admin, one not) have reviewed this already and saw no basis. Enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse no basis for the speedy on the book, no basis for trying to delete the image, no basis for taking to DRV.DGG 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me how this meets Wp:fair_use#Images "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." The article text doesn't mention the cover at all. That's just one of my policy based objections. Nardman1 04:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; completely in line with current practice, which is to ignore the fair use criteria for book and album covers. Nardman1, if you want to fight this fight, please use an article that does not make it appear like this is a personal issue between you and Jeff. Kusma (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah, no climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, huh? Withdrawn. Nardman1 13:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not clear what better illustration there can be for an article on a book, than a scan of the cover. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]