Category:Eagle Scouts – Undeletion - The deletion discussions did not reach a consensus to delete. In the absence of a consensus, we look to policy and ask "Is there a clear policy violation so serious as to mandate deletion in the absence of consensus?" The answer is that there was not. Therefore, the deletion is overturned. Johntex\^talk 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Adomian (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Category:Eagle Scouts (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CfD`)` Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CfD`)` Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`CfD`)` As a reference I want to note the previous CfDs prior to the one referenced above. 2007 July 23 2007 July 20 After some discussion, where the consensus of editors thought that keeping the three above categories was a good idea, the discussion was closed as The result of the debate was Delete. In closing comments, the admin stated, "So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT." First, Jc37 is wrong on the facts. "The title of "Eagle Scout" is held for life, thus giving rise to the phrase "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle"." The members are notable, and they are Eagle Scouts. Only about 2% of Boy Scouts make Eagle Scout and only about 1% of Eagle Scouts receive the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. This is significant. Second, let us stipulate that all the comments were made were of equal value and quality. That being said, 2x as many people thought it good to keep the above-referenced categories. Jc37's closure flies in the face of logic and was not with Wikipedia:Consensus. Third, most people consider the attainment of the rank a major life milestone. Many Eagle Scouts keep the fact that attained the Eagle Scout rank on their resumes for life ; such as US President Gerald Ford. He always regarded this as one of his proudest accomplishments, even after attaining the White House (see this link and the wiki article on Ford). Reliable sources often mention that notable people are Eagle Scouts, and clearly regard it as a defining characteristic. A defining characteristic and award for anyone, due to its limited number of awardees, the fact that "what an Eagle Scout is" is well known, sometimes to a cliche level. Following the logic of the admin who closed this CfD, most people categories should be deleted. Like "People from Spokane" and "Recipients of the Bronze Star medal" all the "UK PM" by decade cats, and "category:Fictional canaries." Are we really saying fictional canaries is worthy of a category and being an Eagle Scout isn’t? And how are all the "year of birth/death" defining? They’re so overfull as to be totally useless. Finally, people keep forgetting categories have value outside of lists. How often do we have to delete a cat and put it in a list then delete a list and put in a cat? Which way is the wind blowing this week? Overturn and restore --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] You left out part of the closure. Here's the full closure, for those who don't wish to check out the discussion: The result of the debate was Delete Category:Eagle Scouts and Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts; Listify Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts to Scouting in popular culture. Note the introduction to the featured list, List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America): This list of Eagle Scouts includes men who have become notable after earning Eagle Scout, the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Since it was first awarded in 1912, Eagle Scout has been earned by more than one and a half million young men. So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT. - jc37 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] - jc37 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Disagree--being an Eagle Scout is both a defining characteristic, as well as a significant achievement, and therefore consistent with WP:OCAT. For example, being an Eagle Scout has frequently been cited as a defining characteristic as well as an ingredient in the success of Steve Fossett. Dhaluza (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pulling 1, 2, or even 50 names out of the air doesn't make all Eagle Scouts "notable". And further, just being an Eagle Scout has yet to be shown as "notable" in and of itself. - jc37 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what "several parts" it goes against. It isn't an "opinion," "subjective," "arbitrary," "intersection by location," or "intersection by ethnicity, etc," a "narrow intersection," "small" or "unrelated" or "overlapping," "eponymous," "candidates," or a "published list," "venue," or"performer." The only possible parts left are "awards" (for which this award definitely shows notability) and "non-defining," which you keep saying it is not. I think that the biggest point showing that it is notable is when its recipients say that it is (like the Gerald Ford example). —Scouter Sig 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore No consensus for delete (and being an Eagle Scout is a defining characteristic). Dhaluza (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore - CfD closure did not reflect consensus. I do not see that the categories fail WP:OCAT, either. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore Category:Eagle Scouts. Do not agree that consensus was reached on the previous CFD. Per guideline — WP:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic — "In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments." Attaining Eagle Scout IS notable in a person's life and is a major accomplishment. When a person goes on to achieve notability later in life, it does not make this a non-notable event. Having the category does not imply that all Eagle Scouts have sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article. This category should be restored. — ERcheck (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure (Though I do not oppose an attempt at listifying.) - As I note above (and in the closure), List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) makes it clear that this is a group of individuals who are notable for what they did after being an eagle scout. If Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts is considered a valid category by those commenting here, then by all means, overturn. But it obviously isn't. This is an intersection of notability and trivia. I'm a big fan of Scouting (believe it or not), but I'm also a fan of Star Wars, and Star Trek. for that matter. And I don't think that we'd dispute those who say: "Once a Trekkie, always a Trekkie." Or for that matter, I note that Category:Order of the Arrow doesn't include people, though the list at Distinguished Service Award (OA) does. How about Silver Buffalo Award? Or any of the other members of Category:Scout and Guide awards? If you (the nominator) wish this to be a WP:WAX argument, that's fine, but let's include "everything", not just a few categories taken out of context of their structure. As for categories and lists, check out WP:CLS for guidelines concerning lists, gidelines, and series boxes (also called navboxes). It's not about "which way the wind's blowing". The bottom line is that this should be a list (if anything) per WP:BLP, among other things. It also allows for references showing that they were at one time Eagle Scouts. And though I personally might not be worried that the category could become as large a 1.5 million members, someone might... I wonder if that's why they're all not listed in the featured list: List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)... - jc37 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment on "Notable people who are/were also Eagle Scouts" — This is redundant. If they have a Wikipedia article, then per WP:BIO, they are notable. — ERcheck (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's the point! Just because they happen to be notable, and happen to be eagle scouts, there is no reason to have a category intersecting the two. "Category:Astronauts who were Eagle scouts"; "Category:Presidents who were Eagle Scouts"; "Category:Film directors who were Eagle Scouts" - These people are notable because of something later in their lives. And while their lives may have been influenced by their experiences in earning Eagle Scout, they aren't notable for being Eagle Scouts. That's why I made the point to quote from the List introduction. And note that this was mentioned in the nomination as well. - jc37 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] That is a red-herring argument. Nobody is suggesting the cross-categorizations you are listing here. Eagle Scouts is not a cross-categorization--all categories are cross-categorized with notability. The fact that it happens early in life is not relevant, but even so, many Eagle Scouts cite it as being relevant to them--that is they self-identify as Eagle Scouts (e.g. Gerald Ford and Steve Fossett examples above). Also we have plenty of cats that define early life, e.g. Category:Children of national leaders, Category:Military brats, etc. Dhaluza (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Red herring? If what you just postulated was true, then not only every single person listed on List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (at the very least every single Distinguished Eagle Scout), but every single Eagle Scout, should have an article, right? Just being an Eagle Scout creates their "notability", after all. If not, it's trivia and WP:OCAT (and various other explanations on various category guidelines pages) applies, and these should be deleted. So which is it? - jc37 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Again, this is a red herring. Nobody is suggesting that every Eagle Scout have an article simply to fill up the category. But if someone is notable, then the fact that they were an Eagle Scout is relevant. As already pointed out, some successful people self-identify with this, and even credit it with contributing to their success. And to someone who might be researching notable Eagle Scouts, it provides a quick index. So there is no need to delete the category, it is not inconsistent with the requirements of WP:OCAT. Dhaluza (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dhaluza's statement provides clarification to exactly what I was trying to get across. This is not a cross-categorization issue, as notability should be inherent for all biographical subjects with articles. Notable characteristics that are included in an article/category are not necessarily sufficient for establishing notability (for example, Category:Harvard Law School alumni) — ERcheck (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I suppose that this is where I'm supposed to point to the section of WP:AADD which states that notability is not inherited... But that aside, categories aren't articles. - jc37 12:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Further Comment - "...let us stipulate that all the comments were made were of equal value and quality.": Let's not. Even in the discussion there were commenters noting the poor quality of the "keep" comments. evrik, the nominator above, had this as his comment: "Keep per previous CfD." - There were several of such comments, which several people, including the nominator of the CfD complained about. (Which also meant that I had to take at least that previous discussion under consideration in the closure. See also this cfd discussion as well...) So despite the accusations of being "wrong about the facts" at the top, I did a bit more research than is being presumed. And, as always, counting votes does not equal consensus. - jc37 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn for Category:Eagle Scouts only; (listify Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts and Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts per my arguments here.) I think that the Eagle Scout category is a notable accomplishment. The idea that the category could have 1.5 million articles is, I think, not hitting the point head on. Category: Living People I'm sure has more than that. If the category ever got "too big" it could be broken down to Category:Eagle Scouts by decade or something. The award is notable, and it's awardees are notable, and I believe that the intersection is notable. You may argue that they are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but few categories are intended to prove notability. Julia Gillard is not notable for being in Category:Welsh_Australians, but we all consider it an appropriate category; neither is Shaka notable for being in Category:Murdered kings, but it remains part of his notability.—Scouter Sig 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per closer's rationale. --Kbdank71 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The closer got it right when he said that it wasn't a defining characteristic. As to the nominator's quiestion about competing bird-based categories (" Are we really saying fictional canaries is worthy of a category and being an Eagle Scout isn’t?"), the answer is yes. "Fictional canaries" are all those articles can be; they are both fictional and canaries. But being an Eagle Scout is just a footnote on a career, unlikely to be listed even on a famous person's bio. It may be a big deal to the person, but it's not to the world.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore RE Mike Selinker "just a footnote on a career, unlikely to be listed even on a famous person's bio"...Oh really? The very first bio I checked had it listed, near the top: SC Justice Stephen Breyer. It was so kind of you to ignore most of the other points brought up, giving them more credibility. Just because you think it's not defining, doesn't mean it isn't. It is very defining. I support restoring these for all the reasons mentioned by other supporting restoring. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore because delete was not the consensus of that discussion. In fact, I'd go so far as to overturn the 20 July discussion and close it as keep, because keep was the clear consensus of that discussion. The preceeding is the DRV reason for overturning. While getting my Eagle wasn't one of the times I've been quoted in the press, for me, like many many award recipients, it did make the press. Getting an eagle is in fact a significant biographical event, regularly reported in the press and regularly discussed in dead tree biographies, precisely because only recipients with certain qualities receive one, so mentioning the ward defines the recipient in terms of having had those characteristics - at least at that stage of life. Thus the delete arguers who said it is not defining are just plain wrong and in my eyes there is no need to relist. GRBerry 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I honestly mean this in no way disrespectfully, but I've seen notices in "the press" about Mrs. Homebody's Wednesday night Pinochle game; St. Local's church bazaar; and Mrs. Bedding's quilting bee. I think one of the difficulties/confusions here is that some thing that that we might normally compare this to might be considered professions. And this isn't. It falls under organisation member, award earner/winner. Can this be shown comparable to the Nobel Prize, or even the Newberry Medal? And those are yearly awards. Becoming an Eagle Scout just means passing certain criteria. Anyone who completes these criteria at any time (prior to being 18) can become an Eagle Scout. Is it really really cool to be an Eagle Scout? Sure. Pillar of the community, and all-around great guy. Should it be a category grouping in Wikipedia? Probably not. - jc37 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] This shows you simply don't understand. It it NOT merely passing a set of criteria. It's far more, but I'm sure you wouldn't get that either if I tried to explain it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I appreciate open discussion, and even lively debate, but that last comment crossed the line a bit. I'd appreciate if you clarified how you feel that it's not; or clarified and struck it and apologised. - jc37 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse all three closures - closing admin got it exactly right and this DRV is just an attempt to get another bite at the apple. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Something off of the AP (not a local paper). This is a quote from an Eagle Scout on the impact it has on his life, and the community: On December 3 the 64-year-old, who called himself a black militant in his autobiography, will formally collect the honor. He said he hopes it will add an important layer to a personal narrative that, to many people, will always be linked to his conviction in the civil rights protest at a historically black college that ended with three students gunned down by state troopers. "People have tried to create these monsters and make us something that we weren't because it helped them make their case," said Sellers, the director of the African American Studies program at the University of South Carolina. "I think it's important for people to know who I am and maybe through the process that will help lower the barrier and lower the kind of imagery they have of me." — Cleveland Sellers^[1] --evrik ^(talk) 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse all three closures - a minor event in someone's youth. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Could you provide some documentation on thta, especially in light of the previous article i just posted? --evrik ^(talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Minor? NO WAY. You just don't get it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - I can understand some stupid little thing like "People that were valedictorians" being deleted, but being an Eagle Scout is no stupid little thing. Why anyone would want this deleted is beyond me. Whammies Were Here 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restoreJust read all the other in favor of overturn, no need to repeat myself for the umpteenth time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore for Eagle scout category. Listify the others mayhaps. I'd like to know who has received the DESA I think the category is necessary. I also think all this quibbling is silly. Eagleapex (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I think the Distinguished Eagle Scouts should be a sub-cat of Eagle Scouts. The Fictional Eagle Scouts should not be a cat, because although it is a defining characteristic for real people, it is a trivial attribute for fictional characters. Dhaluza (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Note that listifying a category means that no content is lost, and while I haven't actually compared them, I "believe" that all the Distinguished Eagle Scouts are already listified at List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (and were so prior to the CfD). ~~Anyone out there have any idea why List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (a featured list) doesn't currently include all Eagle Scouts?~~ - jc37 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I took a closer look at that page, and see now that there is a symbol which differentiates between the two. Which means that, at this time, all three categories are currently listified already. - jc37 12:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Jc37 is incorrect ( see Talk:List_of_Eagle_Scouts_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)/to_do), not all Eagles in the cat were in the list. Plus, this constant list/cat debate is really getting old. Why can't there be both? It's also applied inconsistently--towit, there is both a list and cat for US Presidents, why isn't that cat being deleted? There are other such cases too. This whole case comes down to two things: 1) which side of the months-long list/cat issues is one on, and 2) is being an Eagle Scout a defining characteristic. For item two, yes it is defining. For both item one and two, considering considering what I've seen of other list/cat debates and this current Eagle issue and the two prior ones, it's obvious both sides are fervent in their beliefs and are not going to change their view. The result will come down to which side of the fence the closing admin is on. I will agree Fictional Eagles can stay deleted, but not the other two cats. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undeleting - the discussion on deletion did not result in a consensus to delete. To the contrary, the comments tended towards keep. The nominations should have been closed with a result of keep or no consensus at minimum. In the absence of a consensus to delete, there would need to be a clear-cut and compelling policy reason why these categories cannot exist on Wikipedia. None was given. The analogy to "People from Spokane" is a good one. We routinely classify people based upon where there city of birth, something over which they had no control. In the case of the Eagle Scout award, the recipient consciously strove for the achievement. Most Eagle Scouts consider it a formative event in their lives, and the Boy Scouts of America considers it something that is carried for one's whole life. To wit, there are no "former Eagle Scouts". Therefore, I am restoring the categories. Johntex\^talk 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] References ^ Goggins, Katrina A. (Nov 2007). "Ex-Black Militant Becomes Eagle Scout". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-11-26.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Eagle Scouts – Undeletion - The deletion discussions did not reach a consensus to delete. In the absence of a consensus, we look to policy and ask "Is there a clear policy violation so serious as to mandate deletion in the absence of consensus?" The answer is that there was not. Therefore, the deletion is overturned. Johntex\^talk 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a reference I want to note the previous CfDs prior to the one referenced above.

After some discussion, where the consensus of editors thought that keeping the three above categories was a good idea, the discussion was closed as The result of the debate was Delete. In closing comments, the admin stated,

"So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT."

First, Jc37 is wrong on the facts. "The title of "Eagle Scout" is held for life, thus giving rise to the phrase "Once an Eagle, always an Eagle"." The members are notable, and they are Eagle Scouts. Only about 2% of Boy Scouts make Eagle Scout and only about 1% of Eagle Scouts receive the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. This is significant.
Second, let us stipulate that all the comments were made were of equal value and quality. That being said, 2x as many people thought it good to keep the above-referenced categories. Jc37's closure flies in the face of logic and was not with Wikipedia:Consensus.
Third, most people consider the attainment of the rank a major life milestone. Many Eagle Scouts keep the fact that attained the Eagle Scout rank on their resumes for life ; such as US President Gerald Ford. He always regarded this as one of his proudest accomplishments, even after attaining the White House (see this link and the wiki article on Ford).

Reliable sources often mention that notable people are Eagle Scouts, and clearly regard it as a defining characteristic. A defining characteristic and award for anyone, due to its limited number of awardees, the fact that "what an Eagle Scout is" is well known, sometimes to a cliche level.

Following the logic of the admin who closed this CfD, most people categories should be deleted. Like "People from Spokane" and "Recipients of the Bronze Star medal" all the "UK PM" by decade cats, and "category:Fictional canaries." Are we really saying fictional canaries is worthy of a category and being an Eagle Scout isn’t? And how are all the "year of birth/death" defining? They’re so overfull as to be totally useless.

Finally, people keep forgetting categories have value outside of lists. How often do we have to delete a cat and put it in a list then delete a list and put in a cat? Which way is the wind blowing this week?

Overturn and restore --evrik ^(talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You left out part of the closure. Here's the full closure, for those who don't wish to check out the discussion:

The result of the debate was Delete Category:Eagle Scouts and Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts; Listify Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts to Scouting in popular culture.

Note the introduction to the featured list, List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America):

This list of Eagle Scouts includes men who have become notable after earning Eagle Scout, the highest rank attainable in the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Since it was first awarded in 1912, Eagle Scout has been earned by more than one and a half million young men.

So the members are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but for something else after earning Eagle Scout. AKA Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts. These fail as categories under several sections of WP:OCAT. - jc37 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- jc37 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree--being an Eagle Scout is both a defining characteristic, as well as a significant achievement, and therefore consistent with WP:OCAT. For example, being an Eagle Scout has frequently been cited as a defining characteristic as well as an ingredient in the success of Steve Fossett. Dhaluza (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling 1, 2, or even 50 names out of the air doesn't make all Eagle Scouts "notable". And further, just being an Eagle Scout has yet to be shown as "notable" in and of itself. - jc37 12:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't know what "several parts" it goes against. It isn't an "opinion," "subjective," "arbitrary," "intersection by location," or "intersection by ethnicity, etc," a "narrow intersection," "small" or "unrelated" or "overlapping," "eponymous," "candidates," or a "published list," "venue," or"performer." The only possible parts left are "awards" (for which this award definitely shows notability) and "non-defining," which you keep saying it is not. I think that the biggest point showing that it is notable is when its recipients say that it is (like the Gerald Ford example). —Scouter Sig 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore No consensus for delete (and being an Eagle Scout is a defining characteristic). Dhaluza (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - CfD closure did not reflect consensus. I do not see that the categories fail WP:OCAT, either. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore Category:Eagle Scouts. Do not agree that consensus was reached on the previous CFD. Per guideline — WP:Overcategorization#Non-defining or trivial characteristic — "In general, categorize by what may be considered notable in a person's life, such as his or her career, origin and major accomplishments." Attaining Eagle Scout IS notable in a person's life and is a major accomplishment. When a person goes on to achieve notability later in life, it does not make this a non-notable event. Having the category does not imply that all Eagle Scouts have sufficient notability to have a Wikipedia article. This category should be restored. — ERcheck (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (Though I do not oppose an attempt at listifying.) - As I note above (and in the closure), List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) makes it clear that this is a group of individuals who are notable for what they did after being an eagle scout. If Category:Notable people who were also Eagle Scouts is considered a valid category by those commenting here, then by all means, overturn. But it obviously isn't. This is an intersection of notability and trivia. I'm a big fan of Scouting (believe it or not), but I'm also a fan of Star Wars, and Star Trek. for that matter. And I don't think that we'd dispute those who say: "Once a Trekkie, always a Trekkie." Or for that matter, I note that Category:Order of the Arrow doesn't include people, though the list at Distinguished Service Award (OA) does. How about Silver Buffalo Award? Or any of the other members of Category:Scout and Guide awards? If you (the nominator) wish this to be a WP:WAX argument, that's fine, but let's include "everything", not just a few categories taken out of context of their structure. As for categories and lists, check out WP:CLS for guidelines concerning lists, gidelines, and series boxes (also called navboxes). It's not about "which way the wind's blowing". The bottom line is that this should be a list (if anything) per WP:BLP, among other things. It also allows for references showing that they were at one time Eagle Scouts. And though I personally might not be worried that the category could become as large a 1.5 million members, someone might... I wonder if that's why they're all not listed in the featured list: List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)... - jc37 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on "Notable people who are/were also Eagle Scouts" — This is redundant. If they have a Wikipedia article, then per WP:BIO, they are notable. — ERcheck (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point! Just because they happen to be notable, and happen to be eagle scouts, there is no reason to have a category intersecting the two. "Category:Astronauts who were Eagle scouts"; "Category:Presidents who were Eagle Scouts"; "Category:Film directors who were Eagle Scouts" - These people are notable because of something later in their lives. And while their lives may have been influenced by their experiences in earning Eagle Scout, they aren't notable for being Eagle Scouts. That's why I made the point to quote from the List introduction. And note that this was mentioned in the nomination as well. - jc37 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a red-herring argument. Nobody is suggesting the cross-categorizations you are listing here. Eagle Scouts is not a cross-categorization--all categories are cross-categorized with notability. The fact that it happens early in life is not relevant, but even so, many Eagle Scouts cite it as being relevant to them--that is they self-identify as Eagle Scouts (e.g. Gerald Ford and Steve Fossett examples above). Also we have plenty of cats that define early life, e.g. Category:Children of national leaders, Category:Military brats, etc. Dhaluza (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring? If what you just postulated was true, then not only every single person listed on List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (at the very least every single Distinguished Eagle Scout), but every single Eagle Scout, should have an article, right? Just being an Eagle Scout creates their "notability", after all. If not, it's trivia and WP:OCAT (and various other explanations on various category guidelines pages) applies, and these should be deleted. So which is it? - jc37 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a red herring. Nobody is suggesting that every Eagle Scout have an article simply to fill up the category. But if someone is notable, then the fact that they were an Eagle Scout is relevant. As already pointed out, some successful people self-identify with this, and even credit it with contributing to their success. And to someone who might be researching notable Eagle Scouts, it provides a quick index. So there is no need to delete the category, it is not inconsistent with the requirements of WP:OCAT. Dhaluza (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaluza's statement provides clarification to exactly what I was trying to get across. This is not a cross-categorization issue, as notability should be inherent for all biographical subjects with articles. Notable characteristics that are included in an article/category are not necessarily sufficient for establishing notability (for example, Category:Harvard Law School alumni) — ERcheck (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that this is where I'm supposed to point to the section of WP:AADD which states that notability is not inherited... But that aside, categories aren't articles. - jc37 12:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - "...let us stipulate that all the comments were made were of equal value and quality.": Let's not. Even in the discussion there were commenters noting the poor quality of the "keep" comments. evrik, the nominator above, had this as his comment: "Keep per previous CfD." - There were several of such comments, which several people, including the nominator of the CfD complained about. (Which also meant that I had to take at least that previous discussion under consideration in the closure. See also this cfd discussion as well...) So despite the accusations of being "wrong about the facts" at the top, I did a bit more research than is being presumed. And, as always, counting votes does not equal consensus. - jc37 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for Category:Eagle Scouts only; (listify Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts and Category:Fictional Eagle Scouts per my arguments here.) I think that the Eagle Scout category is a notable accomplishment. The idea that the category could have 1.5 million articles is, I think, not hitting the point head on. Category: Living People I'm sure has more than that. If the category ever got "too big" it could be broken down to Category:Eagle Scouts by decade or something. The award is notable, and it's awardees are notable, and I believe that the intersection is notable. You may argue that they are not notable for being Eagle Scouts, but few categories are intended to prove notability. Julia Gillard is not notable for being in Category:Welsh_Australians, but we all consider it an appropriate category; neither is Shaka notable for being in Category:Murdered kings, but it remains part of his notability.—Scouter Sig 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per closer's rationale. --Kbdank71 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer got it right when he said that it wasn't a defining characteristic. As to the nominator's quiestion about competing bird-based categories (" Are we really saying fictional canaries is worthy of a category and being an Eagle Scout isn’t?"), the answer is yes. "Fictional canaries" are all those articles can be; they are both fictional and canaries. But being an Eagle Scout is just a footnote on a career, unlikely to be listed even on a famous person's bio. It may be a big deal to the person, but it's not to the world.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore RE Mike Selinker "just a footnote on a career, unlikely to be listed even on a famous person's bio"...Oh really? The very first bio I checked had it listed, near the top: SC Justice Stephen Breyer. It was so kind of you to ignore most of the other points brought up, giving them more credibility. Just because you think it's not defining, doesn't mean it isn't. It is very defining. I support restoring these for all the reasons mentioned by other supporting restoring. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore because delete was not the consensus of that discussion. In fact, I'd go so far as to overturn the 20 July discussion and close it as keep, because keep was the clear consensus of that discussion. The preceeding is the DRV reason for overturning. While getting my Eagle wasn't one of the times I've been quoted in the press, for me, like many many award recipients, it did make the press. Getting an eagle is in fact a significant biographical event, regularly reported in the press and regularly discussed in dead tree biographies, precisely because only recipients with certain qualities receive one, so mentioning the ward defines the recipient in terms of having had those characteristics - at least at that stage of life. Thus the delete arguers who said it is not defining are just plain wrong and in my eyes there is no need to relist. GRBerry 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly mean this in no way disrespectfully, but I've seen notices in "the press" about Mrs. Homebody's Wednesday night Pinochle game; St. Local's church bazaar; and Mrs. Bedding's quilting bee. I think one of the difficulties/confusions here is that some thing that that we might normally compare this to might be considered professions. And this isn't. It falls under organisation member, award earner/winner. Can this be shown comparable to the Nobel Prize, or even the Newberry Medal? And those are yearly awards. Becoming an Eagle Scout just means passing certain criteria. Anyone who completes these criteria at any time (prior to being 18) can become an Eagle Scout. Is it really really cool to be an Eagle Scout? Sure. Pillar of the community, and all-around great guy. Should it be a category grouping in Wikipedia? Probably not. - jc37 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows you simply don't understand. It it NOT merely passing a set of criteria. It's far more, but I'm sure you wouldn't get that either if I tried to explain it. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate open discussion, and even lively debate, but that last comment crossed the line a bit. I'd appreciate if you clarified how you feel that it's not; or clarified and struck it and apologised. - jc37 12:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all three closures - closing admin got it exactly right and this DRV is just an attempt to get another bite at the apple. Otto4711 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something off of the AP (not a local paper). This is a quote from an Eagle Scout on the impact it has on his life, and the community:

On December 3 the 64-year-old, who called himself a black militant in his autobiography, will formally collect the honor. He said he hopes it will add an important layer to a personal narrative that, to many people, will always be linked to his conviction in the civil rights protest at a historically black college that ended with three students gunned down by state troopers.

"People have tried to create these monsters and make us something that we weren't because it helped them make their case," said Sellers, the director of the African American Studies program at the University of South Carolina. "I think it's important for people to know who I am and maybe through the process that will help lower the barrier and lower the kind of imagery they have of me."

— Cleveland Sellers^[1]

--evrik ^(talk) 16:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all three closures - a minor event in someone's youth. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you provide some documentation on thta, especially in light of the previous article i just posted? --evrik ^(talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor? NO WAY. You just don't get it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - I can understand some stupid little thing like "People that were valedictorians" being deleted, but being an Eagle Scout is no stupid little thing. Why anyone would want this deleted is beyond me. Whammies Were Here 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restoreJust read all the other in favor of overturn, no need to repeat myself for the umpteenth time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore for Eagle scout category. Listify the others mayhaps. I'd like to know who has received the DESA I think the category is necessary. I also think all this quibbling is silly. Eagleapex (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Distinguished Eagle Scouts should be a sub-cat of Eagle Scouts. The Fictional Eagle Scouts should not be a cat, because although it is a defining characteristic for real people, it is a trivial attribute for fictional characters. Dhaluza (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that listifying a category means that no content is lost, and while I haven't actually compared them, I "believe" that all the Distinguished Eagle Scouts are already listified at List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (and were so prior to the CfD). ~~Anyone out there have any idea why List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (a featured list) doesn't currently include all Eagle Scouts?~~ - jc37 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at that page, and see now that there is a symbol which differentiates between the two. Which means that, at this time, all three categories are currently listified already. - jc37 12:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jc37 is incorrect ( see Talk:List_of_Eagle_Scouts_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)/to_do), not all Eagles in the cat were in the list. Plus, this constant list/cat debate is really getting old. Why can't there be both? It's also applied inconsistently--towit, there is both a list and cat for US Presidents, why isn't that cat being deleted? There are other such cases too. This whole case comes down to two things: 1) which side of the months-long list/cat issues is one on, and 2) is being an Eagle Scout a defining characteristic. For item two, yes it is defining. For both item one and two, considering considering what I've seen of other list/cat debates and this current Eagle issue and the two prior ones, it's obvious both sides are fervent in their beliefs and are not going to change their view. The result will come down to which side of the fence the closing admin is on. I will agree Fictional Eagles can stay deleted, but not the other two cats. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleting - the discussion on deletion did not result in a consensus to delete. To the contrary, the comments tended towards keep. The nominations should have been closed with a result of keep or no consensus at minimum. In the absence of a consensus to delete, there would need to be a clear-cut and compelling policy reason why these categories cannot exist on Wikipedia. None was given. The analogy to "People from Spokane" is a good one. We routinely classify people based upon where there city of birth, something over which they had no control. In the case of the Eagle Scout award, the recipient consciously strove for the achievement. Most Eagle Scouts consider it a formative event in their lives, and the Boy Scouts of America considers it something that is carried for one's whole life. To wit, there are no "former Eagle Scouts". Therefore, I am restoring the categories. Johntex\^talk 15:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Goggins, Katrina A. (Nov 2007). "Ex-Black Militant Becomes Eagle Scout". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-11-26.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fyne Times – Restored as an invalid G4, references added, requester is happy, deleting admin is happy, everyone seems happy. --Stormie (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fyne Times (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` This was a page I patrolled in the new pages. It was an article on a Gay and Lesbian magazine. Looked like a legitimate article to me. The magazine has a page on the web. It still needed some work so I placed some maintenance tags on it and categorized it under GLBT. logged on today and the page was completely missing from my contributions list? I'm not gay but have no prejudice towards the gay community. Was there a legitimate reason why the article was deleted? I was unable to ascertain which Administrator deleted the page so I have not notified them of this discussion. It would be nice to get some feedback on this as I'm now wondering if I had been working on a banned page or something? Sting_au Talk 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore - the logs show that the deleting admin was User:Orangemike. However, the reason given "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material" is invalid since G4 only applies to deletions following a deletion discussion; this page has only previously been speedy deleted to which G4 doesn't apply. BlueValour (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore G4 speedy deletion was wrong. RMHED (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] I have restored as an invalid G4 speedy deletion. Recommend adding reliable sources establishing notability ASAP, the article at present would not survive an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] OK, I have cleaned it up, put it in categories and added some references. There are many more that can be added but I'll leave that to those for whom this article is mainstream. BlueValour (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to all concerned. The article as originally created, and as recreated, was extremely spammy. I do hope that a decent article can be created, but the one I deleted was clearly not it. I apologize for imprecise use of the tools (i.e., G4); I'm still pretty new with the mop and bucket, and will admit to a pretty hardnosed attitude towards spammers. --Orange Mike \| Talk 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Fyne Times – Restored as an invalid G4, references added, requester is happy, deleting admin is happy, everyone seems happy. --Stormie (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a page I patrolled in the new pages. It was an article on a Gay and Lesbian magazine. Looked like a legitimate article to me. The magazine has a page on the web. It still needed some work so I placed some maintenance tags on it and categorized it under GLBT. logged on today and the page was completely missing from my contributions list? I'm not gay but have no prejudice towards the gay community. Was there a legitimate reason why the article was deleted? I was unable to ascertain which Administrator deleted the page so I have not notified them of this discussion. It would be nice to get some feedback on this as I'm now wondering if I had been working on a banned page or something? Sting_au Talk 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore - the logs show that the deleting admin was User:Orangemike. However, the reason given "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material" is invalid since G4 only applies to deletions following a deletion discussion; this page has only previously been speedy deleted to which G4 doesn't apply. BlueValour (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore G4 speedy deletion was wrong. RMHED (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored as an invalid G4 speedy deletion. Recommend adding reliable sources establishing notability ASAP, the article at present would not survive an AfD discussion. --Stormie (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I have cleaned it up, put it in categories and added some references. There are many more that can be added but I'll leave that to those for whom this article is mainstream. BlueValour (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks to all concerned. The article as originally created, and as recreated, was extremely spammy. I do hope that a decent article can be created, but the one I deleted was clearly not it. I apologize for imprecise use of the tools (i.e., G4); I'm still pretty new with the mop and bucket, and will admit to a pretty hardnosed attitude towards spammers. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alex Smithies – Recreated – Core desat 09:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alex Smithies (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Speedy allow recreation - Now meets WP:BIO having come on as a substitute for Huddersfield Town at Southend United. See here and here. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Article has since been recreated, and the subject now meets our notability guidelines. I suggest a speedy close. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Alex Smithies – Recreated – Core desat 09:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy allow recreation - Now meets WP:BIO having come on as a substitute for Huddersfield Town at Southend United. See here and here. BlueValour (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has since been recreated, and the subject now meets our notability guidelines. I suggest a speedy close. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UNIVERSITY_MUSICAL_SOCIETY – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
UNIVERSITY_MUSICAL_SOCIETY (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` NOTABLE TOPIC UniversityMusicalSociety (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] This article about the University Musical Society (UMS) should be allowed to be created because of its notability. UMS is an internationally recognized arts presenting organization consistently ranked with Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center. The UMS website is located here: www.ums.org In addition, here are some articles to verify the importance, international recognition, and validity of UMS: http://crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/SUB/71202001/1033/toc/-/-/dia-lands-largest-share-of-state-arts-council-grants The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs recently granted over half a million dollars to UMS. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/ENT04/71114039/0/ENT04 The Detroit Free Press, a major newspaper, often features articles about UMS and the performances they bring to Ann Arbor. http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/ART10/711080311 Information about UMS often appears in newspapers from other cities, thus giving UMS more than just local significance. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/02/09/rsc.html UMS is recognized by other notable universities, not just the University of Michigan. Please consider allowing me to create this page. UniversityMusicalSociety (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation - there is enough here to allow recreation. BlueValour (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Article already exists at University Musical Society. --Smashville^BONK! 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - actually the page has just been recreated from a redirect page so we do need to take a view. The recreated page is unsatisfactory as it lacks any of these references. BlueValour (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] According to the logs, the page has never been deleted. Why are we here? --Smashville^BONK! 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure - It doesn't appear that the article in question was ever deleted or nominated for deletion. Any other problems with the article should be dealt with elsewhere. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - deletion of a version of the article is here. BlueValour (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - The article has not fundamentally improved since it was deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion the deleted article was far from neutral and a decent start of an article exists at University Musical Society. Add the above references to that, keep it neutral and there will be no problem. The nominator might want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline though. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UNIVERSITY_MUSICAL_SOCIETY – Deletion endorsed. – Xoloz (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTABLE TOPIC UniversityMusicalSociety (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the University Musical Society (UMS) should be allowed to be created because of its notability. UMS is an internationally recognized arts presenting organization consistently ranked with Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center. The UMS website is located here: www.ums.org

In addition, here are some articles to verify the importance, international recognition, and validity of UMS:

http://crainsdetroit.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/SUB/71202001/1033/toc/-/-/dia-lands-largest-share-of-state-arts-council-grants The Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs recently granted over half a million dollars to UMS.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/ENT04/71114039/0/ENT04 The Detroit Free Press, a major newspaper, often features articles about UMS and the performances they bring to Ann Arbor.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071108/ART10/711080311 Information about UMS often appears in newspapers from other cities, thus giving UMS more than just local significance.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/02/09/rsc.html UMS is recognized by other notable universities, not just the University of Michigan.

Please consider allowing me to create this page. UniversityMusicalSociety (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation - there is enough here to allow recreation. BlueValour (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Article already exists at University Musical Society. --Smashville^BONK! 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually the page has just been recreated from a redirect page so we do need to take a view. The recreated page is unsatisfactory as it lacks any of these references. BlueValour (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the logs, the page has never been deleted. Why are we here? --Smashville^BONK! 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - It doesn't appear that the article in question was ever deleted or nominated for deletion. Any other problems with the article should be dealt with elsewhere. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - deletion of a version of the article is here. BlueValour (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - The article has not fundamentally improved since it was deleted. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion the deleted article was far from neutral and a decent start of an article exists at University Musical Society. Add the above references to that, keep it neutral and there will be no problem. The nominator might want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline though. Mr.Z-man 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Somerville Ecovillage – Request for email copy denied -- copyright violation. – Xoloz (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Somerville Ecovillage (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Could you please email me the deleted Somerville Ecovillage 'off-Wiki' or copy the original page to my talk page so I can review and consider writing an improved article? Thank-you. Ozneil (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] No. The deleted copy was a copyright violation, primarily taken from this site. Copyright violations may not be restored unless there is a release from the copyright holder. (Note: The article was edited somewhat from the original copyvio version but the edits were not substantial enough to overcome the copyright concerns.) If you have evidence that this subject will meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria, you would do far better to start from scratch. Rossami (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Somerville Ecovillage – Request for email copy denied -- copyright violation. – Xoloz (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you please email me the deleted Somerville Ecovillage 'off-Wiki' or copy the original page to my talk page so I can review and consider writing an improved article? Thank-you. Ozneil (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The deleted copy was a copyright violation, primarily taken from this site. Copyright violations may not be restored unless there is a release from the copyright holder. (Note: The article was edited somewhat from the original copyvio version but the edits were not substantial enough to overcome the copyright concerns.) If you have evidence that this subject will meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria, you would do far better to start from scratch. Rossami (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Piercingdot.com – Speedy close. Nothing to review. – W.marsh 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Piercingdot.com (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` spam Folk smith (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Piercingdot.com – Speedy close. Nothing to review. – W.marsh 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

spam Folk smith (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Turtlefish – Speedy close. Nothing to review, the nominator tagged the article for deletion (validly) then opened a deletion review. – W.marsh 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Turtlefish (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` nonsense Folk smith (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Turtlefish – Speedy close. Nothing to review, the nominator tagged the article for deletion (validly) then opened a deletion review. – W.marsh 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

nonsense Folk smith (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sntn – Speedy endorse. Clearly a valid deletion, DRV nomination gives no explanation of why a review is needed. – W.marsh 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sntn (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` vandalism Folk smith (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sntn – Speedy endorse. Clearly a valid deletion, DRV nomination gives no explanation of why a review is needed. – W.marsh 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

vandalism Folk smith (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

James Adomian – Speedy undelete - G4 speedy deletion in August was invalid as the article deleted was not even close to the version deleted in the 2005 AFD and definitely addresses the reason for deletion. I've undeleted the 2007 version. – Mr.Z-man 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Adomian (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Subject Notable; original deletion in 2005 by now-inactive admin; new information available since then; original page could be useful in update under WP:Comedy ChrisBuckles (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] In order for your request for undeletion to succeed, you've going to have to actually provide some evidence of or links to the new information available since the AFD. There do not appear to have been any process problems in the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation - things have moved on since the AfD and he is now getting some press coverage - see here. He is also getting regular work - see here. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it does list him, amongst others, as doing a notable impression of George Bush - here. Whether all this is sufficient to survive a further (likely) AfD is problematic but I think that there is enough here for recreation to be permitted and it can can then take its chances at AfD. BlueValour (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and allow recreation - as BlueValour. I'm sure there are other reliable sources about him as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Here's this and this from today. Also Google search for bush impression yields at least 4 results out of the top ten for James Adomian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBuckles (talk • contribs)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

James Adomian – Speedy undelete - G4 speedy deletion in August was invalid as the article deleted was not even close to the version deleted in the 2005 AFD and definitely addresses the reason for deletion. I've undeleted the 2007 version. – Mr.Z-man 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject Notable; original deletion in 2005 by now-inactive admin; new information available since then; original page could be useful in update under WP:Comedy ChrisBuckles (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order for your request for undeletion to succeed, you've going to have to actually provide some evidence of or links to the new information available since the AFD. There do not appear to have been any process problems in the deletion discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation - things have moved on since the AfD and he is now getting some press coverage - see here. He is also getting regular work - see here. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but it does list him, amongst others, as doing a notable impression of George Bush - here. Whether all this is sufficient to survive a further (likely) AfD is problematic but I think that there is enough here for recreation to be permitted and it can can then take its chances at AfD. BlueValour (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and allow recreation - as BlueValour. I'm sure there are other reliable sources about him as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's this and this from today. Also Google search for bush impression yields at least 4 results out of the top ten for James Adomian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBuckles (talk • contribs)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.