Vlada Frey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Why have you deleted Vlada frey? I saw many people getting in his defense on article discussion page. All you "wikipedians" had in your defense is bunch of dumb rules YOU made up. You people act like you have all the knowledge of the world and if there's someone you actually haven't heard of, then that person is not worthy of your precious wikipedia. So what if Vlada doesn't have a web page? Is the internet only thing deserving merit to you? I have read a lot of magazines and newspaper articles mentioning Vlada. But, hey, they are all Eastern European, you haven't heard of them, right? And, ofcourse, that means they are not worthy. For crying out loud, man, get a little more flexible, will you? I ask for detailed answer, as why are you people so stubborn about your rules, the article didn't stated anything bizarre, sick or offending? P.S. Since the article was in process of debate, and your "rules" state that the page in this process should remain intact for seven days, why has the page been deleted two days earlier? Shmeket (misfiled at Content review, moved by GRBerry

What magazines and newspapers? They aren't online? Why don't you get an article on the Wikipedia that is in the same language as the magazines? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the reasoning here. While I myself know nothing of Vlada Frey, the fact that there isn't much online in English about him might actually make for a good reason to include him. Are we so narrow as to think that people are only interested in subjects from their own language groups or cultures? So long as references are cited, whether online or not and whether in English or not, and so long as the subject himself/itself is otherwise worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, an article should surely be permitted. As an example, I am myself hugely interested in Japanese music and culture, but speak hardly a word of Japanese. English Wikipedia thus is a major source for me, and I rely on contributors who are able to draw on Japanese sources to write good articles in English. Doesn't this make sense in our global, internationalist world? --Ishel99 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we do suffer from recentism and CSB here (and Chris Griswold is wrong here; WP:V allows for non-English sources), that doesn't necessarily mean that someone who isn't online deserves an article if they're not mentioned in online sources. The problem is that the author mentioned "many magazines" but didn't specify which ones, so it's a lot harder to verify the articles or magazines, whether the content matches or there is even enough content to write an article from. ColourBurst 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Clear consensus at AfD; closed per consensus; not too happy about the closing remark. "Jamnezdin Kurtovic-Piton" gets one ghit: the deleted article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The "dumb rules [we] made up" were reached through consensus, and if you have a huge problem with them, go to another site. JuJube 02:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion AfD consensus was clear, and nominator's reasoning (more or less that we shouldn't bother to enforce our rules) is extremely weak. As noted above, if you have such disdain for WP's rules, try another site, there's plenty out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Your argument is, in effect, "Instead of the dumb rules you made up, use the dumb rules I made up". It's not too late to provide valid sources, however. --UsaSatsui 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD1|AfD2|AfD3|AfD4)

The article was deleted even though no consensus was reached. 17 users supported deletion (one of which was simply "per nom", but was not discounted) and 17 voted to keep the article (a few of the "keep" votes were discounted by the closing administrator). Now, granted that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but AfDs should be decided through consensus and not polling. 17 vs. 12 or 13 hardly seems to be a consensus.

Note: For the sake of consistency, I am also nominating List of tall women for deletion review (the result of the AfD debate was a consensus keep).

The administrator's justification for the decision is that:

The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion - that the list is subjective and there is no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means.

However, a number of users directly addressed and refuted the chief reason for deletion--the "subjectivity" of the term tall. See, for instance, the comment by User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back against a "fruitless semantic exercise":

NOR applies to "new definitions of pre-existing terms;" it does not preclude the variable, reasonable interpretation of very common adjectives.

The criticism of the subjectivity of the term "tall" blurs the distinction between a criterion that is subjective and one that has alternatives. Notability could, in theory, have any number of possible (and plausible) definitions, but WP:Notability is an objective criterion. Likewise, the term tall could have varying interpretations, but it can also be an objective criterion (reached through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article).

At the least, the article should be restored so that it could be renamed to List of the tallest men (per the suggestion by User:Penwhale, which could list the tallest men ever, in specific countries/regions, at particular times in history, etc. (this is really a matter for that article’s talk page). Black Falcon 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has undergone an AfD three more times (as copied from the most recent AfD): Black Falcon 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men, Oct 2005 (no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men (2nd nomination), Sep 2006 (bundled nomination, all closed no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall women, 5 Dec 2006 (bundled nomination, all closed no consensus)

• Comment - At the risk of rehashing my comments on the AFD, I do reject Proto's notion that there being "no accepted single definition of what to be 'tall' means" is a reason for deletion. The obvious consequences of that logic are distasteful, particularly the deletion of many valuable, high-quality lists simply because they cover a group which has no definitive parameters. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly agree with C. Parham. On my talk page, I've listed links to many lists that are now in danger because they contain subjective adjectives like "early," "black," "unusual" and "large." Consensus building is hard work, but many good-faith editors were striving to come to agreement as to what criteria should be used to build the deleted list. To cut that work short by deleting the article (rather than assisting the editors in achieveing consensus) is rather like cutting the proverbial baby in half to solve a parentage dispute.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The lost was improved a lot and the reason for deletion was refuted, with 'tall' parametres set by official authorities.Halbared 18:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed that at least two featured lists (and many more high-quality ones) are threatened: Largest suspension bridges and List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region. Black Falcon 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. Closing admin made sound policy and guideline based conclusion, no real basis to overturn his call on it. Despite what is said, it appears that the main reason to overturn in !vote counting more than anything. Agent 86 20:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer - something I didn't note in the close, which perhaps I should have, is that reaching an agreed consensus on what "tall" means "through consensus, verified by external sources, and explicitly noted at the start of the article" would be just splendid. Is it therefore churlish to point out that the article had existed since October 11 2005 (over fifteen months) without managing to arrive upon an agreed consensus on what "tall" means, and no sign of it ever being attained? Proto::► 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was primarily due to fears of the list getting too lengthy. Also it included some on the other side who wanted "their tall guy" included for whatever reason so pushed for a lower standard. That "tall" exists, and can be measured to some degree, I don't think was the point. In retrospect I wish the higher standard of 201 centimetres, the standard used at the Italian one, had been kept as this is almost certainly in the highest percentile of human height in any society. As for another issue, it is incorrect that a variable physical commonality is arbitrary or verboten for lists. There is a Category:Lists of people by physical attribute and many things in Category:Lists of people with disabilities could also apply. In addition Tall Men are a subject of scholarly study. I concede that the disdain for lists is powerful so perhaps an article on Tall men or Tallest men would be better, but because of this deletion I'm not sure such an article can be created.--T. Anthony 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note I do stand by my closing judgement - the issue wasn't no original research (although an argument could be made for an arbvitrary cutoff point being just that, it wasn't a prevailing discussion in the AFD), it was Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - arbitrary and subjective lists are just that. Isn't that what the main thrust of the deletion arguments were about? Proto::► 20:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The nominator made a very strong case, and all the people who voted delete either also made a good case, or mentioned several policies. The people who voted keep didn't have much to say, some didn't say anything at all. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the keep votes were more well-reasoned than that. In addition there were several delete votes that were "delete per nom" or essentially said "it's stupid", but were not stricken. In addition we have several lists like List of buildings with 100 floors or more. Isn't "a 100 floors" also essentially arbitrary? If this had been called List of men over two metres tall would it have been more acceptable because it admits it chose an arbitrary number? Anyway back to the main point, even if you go by what wasn't stricken you had an almost equal number of keeps and deletes each with their own considered arguments. I am perplexed how this means a concensus to delete and I still fail to see how a fair reading of the discussion could lead one to think that. Most of those endorsing closure here have not given a satisfactory answer to that, I feel, and some of them voted delete at the discussion. (I am not an administrator and I have not voted, or whatever you call it, here at all. Still I voted keep there, but I would refrain here even if I could endorse/oppose) Maybe I strayed as well, but the discussion is what mattered. Did the discussion have a concensus to delete and if so can you show how. That's all.--T. Anthony 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What value is it to mention several policies if they are inapplicable? True, those who voted delete linked to more policies, but this means nothing by itself. In addition, those voting keep linked to policies such as WP:NOR (in that the article doesn't violate it) and WP:POINT and referenced other policies in various threads or comments. Black Falcon 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It is disturbing that the AFDs for the "tall women" and "tall men" discussions reached contradictory conclusions even though they were run at about the same time. Nevertheless, I can find no fault with the reasoning put forth by the closer of this discussion. I must endorse the closure and continue to struggle to accept that Wikipedia is often inconsistent. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The tall women one was closed early, quite possibly incorrectly as the pattern of argument was not unanimous, through WP:SNOW. That discussion could easily be repopened - is that within the aegis of this DRV discussion? Proto::► 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by DRV nominator: I apologize for the lengthy DRV nomination and this lengthy comment, but there are two other points that I believe deserve consideration and were not explicitly mentioned in the AfD.

1. Any relational adjective (such as tall, short, large, big, wide, deep, etc.) can be interpreted in different ways. The lower limit of such adjectives can be disputed, but this does not mean that they are hopelessly subjective. Following that logic, every list of the biggest, greatest, largest, longest, tallest, etc. should be deleted (e.g., every list noted in List of "largest" articles). The same logic applies for the opposite: smallest, shortest, cheapest, etc. Lists based on relational adjectives can be encyclopedic, even if they cannot be defined so as to be free of any controversy (to reject any cutoff point, even say 2.5 meters, approaches WP:POINT).
2. Although I do understand the frustration of those who supported deletion that the article hasn't reached resolution so far, it seems like they are giving up on the article. The criticism of the subjectivity of relational adjectives is, as noted in the AfD, "a fruitless semantic exercise, inimical to the subjective nature of language itself". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse deletion. This is just as unsalvagely biased as a List of smart men would be. We can't decide how tall someone must be to be "tall", and there is no agreed on definition, so what are we going to use? If we had a List of tall''est'' men, that might be okay, but that isn't it. -Amark moo! 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on this debate, mostly because I never saw the list. But I seriously doubt "list of tall men" could be as biased as "list of smart men", for the simple reason that a person's height can be accurately and objectively measured, while their intelligence cannot. If we wanted to ensure the maintainability of the list we could choose a minimum height and make it a "list of men over 7 ft. tall" which would also meet or exceed any reasonable person's definition of "tall". In that situation it would be easy to determine who qualifies to be listed, because it's all based on raw height, rather than demographic-based comparisons. If we were dealing with intelligence rather than height, none of these statements would be indisputably true. — CharlotteWebb 02:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're right. A better comparison would be something like List of men with high IQ. -Amark moo! 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there's no list, but we have a Category:Members of Mensa. Going beyond IQ we have List of young people in history, List of famous people who died young, List of physically disabled politicians etc. Is "young", "dying young", or physical disability inarguably defined? Perhaps not, but absolute exactness in all things is neither necessary nor plausible. If it were we'd have to get into debates about the definition of science fiction every time there's a List of science fiction authors or editors or what not.--T. Anthony 04:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allow me to present a list of the words that would become off-limits for WP articles: tall/short, young/old, dark/light, long/short, large/small, big/small, great/small, costly/cheap, high/low, hot/cold, warm/cool, deep/shallow, unusual, and so forth. Essentially every article or statement that uses a relational adjective would need to be deleted. Such adjectives are a normal part of every-day speech and everyone has a general understanding of what they mean. Their specification is a matter of attaining WP:Consensus through discussion (supported by published sources) on article talk pages. The article has received 4 AfD nominations -- maybe some of that effort should have gone into discussing these issues on the article's talk page (I can't check to be sure (as the page is deleted now, but as I recall, none of the issues brought up in this last AfD were really even noted on the talk page). Black Falcon 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um... No. A consensus that something not biased does not make it unbiased. No matter how many sources you can get, it is a POV to say how tall someone "tall" is. And the word "tall" is not banned; if you are writing an article on, say, Yao Ming, you can say "He is considered tall by many people". You would probably be able to just describe him as tall, since so many sources would agree on that. The issue with a list is that a list must have a cutoff point, which will be either biased or set so high that the list is useless. And either way, it will be arbitrary, with people an inch under not being included as tall for no good reason.-Amark moo! 05:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much of what you say would still apply to young/old, etc lists. Why is dying at 39 "dying young" and dying at 40 not "dying young?" Is the nineteenth century death of Frédéric Chopin's, at 39, truly a "younger death" than say Caron Keating's? Numerically yes as he died two years younger than she, but she lived into the 21st century with modern medicine.--T. Anthony 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per all the arguments, not to mention the article was at many times simply a vandalism target. JuJube 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The arguments for deletion were strong, they were not suffiently answered, so the admin called it as delete. That's what's supposed to happen. So the AFD was closed correctly. I see a lot of talk above by the DRV nominator about what "tall" is supposed to mean, but remember, this is not AFD part 2. Some such discussion may be necessary, but please stick to what is relevent to the actual closing. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, relist or delete list of tall women. I was not aware that this list was on AFD at the time, but all of the arguments that brought down list of tall men apply equally to this article, so it should be deleted for the very same reasons. It appears that this article simply received fewer votes because it was lower-profile. If relisting is the necessary route, then so be it, but I think that it's obvious that one can simply apply the same arguments in this case, so deletion would be warranted. — coelacan talk — 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Did someone mention my name? ... Oh yeah, BF did. Per AfD, my suggestion on this issue is thus: Rename to tallest men thereby bypassing the necessity to define the line between "tall" and "not-tall". - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as AfD nominator. This could arguably be salvaged by making it a list of men who were known in their time and genre for being unusually tall, based on assessments by reliable secondary sources, but even that would fail the test of arbitrariness. Consensus is not a few dozen people !voting on a single AfD, consensus is the broad measure of support for policy, in this case WP:NOT. The main attempts to address subjectivity seemed to me to be in terms of changing the value of the subjective criterion for height, and that ain't going to fly. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - 'Largest' and 'tall' are different superlatives ... the equivalent would be 'largest' and 'tallest'. List of tallest men would probably be ok. A simple, non-controversial cut off, such as '20 tallest men alive', '20 tallest men ever', and 5 tallest notable people in certain professions where height is noteworthy and relevant (e.g. NBA) could then be created. Proto::► 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjectivity and Überwikipedia - I do agree that List of tall men was inappropriate, but I think it should have been renamed (moved) to List of tallest men (or List of tallest people--merging the men and women articles) and edited to fit to its new purpose rather than deleted. Following the logic of the AfD with regard to your proposed List of tallest men, wouldn't 20 also be a "subjective" number? Or 10? Or 50? Or any other number? Essentially any list that is not naturally bound (e.g., a list of countries, a list of capital cities) would be "subjective" as any cut-off point is "arbitrary". I believe it is a useless exercise to try to impose a level of rigidity on WP that is not present in the English language itself, and that may indeed diminish the quality of the encyclopedia. -- Black Falcon 17:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Black Falcon 17:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I'm going to have to quote you later, Black Falcon, as you've said this much more concisely than I've yet managed. It really is misleading to think that we can somehow make this list objective by slightly altering the title. There's nothing "non-controversial" about 20. Someone will come along and want their favorite person on the list, and insist that "oh, 30 is simple and non-controversial too". And there would be no good argument for why they're wrong, any more than there'd be a good argument that they're right. The AFD closer noted this, correctly. — coelacan talk — 22:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right. 30 is no better or worse than 20. And that is why I have suggested (repeatedly) that the specific number be left to the WP:Consensus on an article's talk page. According to your arguments, any list that is not naturally bound (e.g., a list of countries, a list of capital cities) should be deleted (including at least 2 featured lists). You demand a level of objectivity which does not exist in any human language. Black Falcon 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering how strong the feelings are of people against lists I keep thinking we should just create some kind of Wiki-Almanac or separate space for them. I've suggested this several times, but nothing's ever really been discussed on it. It seems an almost random policy of selective deletion is preferred. Shrug, whatever.--T. Anthony 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry Black Falcon, I misread and thought you actually were agreeing with me. I didn't mean to twist your argument to my own. Putting that aside, a list of countries and a list of capital cities are both bound lists. There are a finite number of them, that can be counted by objective processes. So if a list lists all of them, then there's no subjective cutoff point for POV pushers to push around. I disagree with your suggestion that we can arrive at a number for this list by consensus. How would a consensus even begin to develop, if everyone has their own ideas about what a "good" number is, and there's no measure for who's got a better idea? For consensus to form, some people have to be able to convince at least a few others that one choice is better. If I were set on 25, who could ever make a coherent argument that I should reconsider that and go with 20 or 30? If there's no coherent argument, where is the consensus going to come from? — coelacan talk — 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No apology necessary. The consensus will come from discussion and (hopefully) some common sense. Yes, if someone is completely set on 25, neither man nor God nor a snarling pitbull (well, maybe that one) could move them. By applying this principle, think of how much encyclopedic content will be deleted: extremes of elevation, size, length, depth, temperature, density, price, longevity, etc. If we can get consensus on religious and political articles, I believe we can get it for a list of height. Also note that I favor the existence of a "List of tallest men/women/people" rather than just plain "tall". However, according to the "subjectivity" argument, the "tallest" article would also be deleted. Black Falcon 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • This already was a list of tallest men. What's the difference besides three letters? Is this just a different adjective to battle the meaning of? — coelacan talk — 20:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse correct interpretation of the debate. I stronly agree with Proto above that "tall" is much more problematic than "tallest". Eluchil404 13:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist both, possibly bundle with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of short men. The fact that these discussions produce different results implies more informed and structured arguments should take place at some centralized location with all the points laid out. Wikipedia may be inconsistent, but that doesn't mean we can't take a further look. It could be argued that consensus will never be reached, but that's no reason to ignore the problem altogether by deleting it. The main closing reason - the subjectivity concerning the adjective - is convincing because it's an ideal, but it asks for way too much. It's ideal to be as non-discriminatory as possible, but that's simply impossible. No one denies that the cut-off point would be arbitary the same way Wikipedia arbitarily exists. But even if the cut-off point fluctuates from time to time, at least we would have an encyclopaedic article about the world's tallest men, a topic of genuine interest. Practically, the cut-off point isn't a big deal; what is of main interest is who appears at the top of the list, not the bottom. I agree that "tall" should be "tallest", because that is what the article did list. "Tallest" would clarify the scope to refute the point that the list neglects people who, although not the tallest of all time, were considered tall in their specific era. If you feel they should be included, great, but that was not what the article set out to do, until the people working on the article were pressured to put the basketball players into their own section. Even if other articles are not supposed to be brought into question here, the consequence should seriously be considered: that a lot of other lists with adjectives fall under the same scrutiny - they are just not debated as much to the point of AfDs. Pomte 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that these discussions gave different results implies only that list of tall men gets more traffic and so got more attention in AFD. Systemic gendered bias? Perhaps. Coincidence? Perhaps. Neither prevents list of tall women from going back on AFD and getting sufficient attention this time, when it's not competing with list of tall men. Other such articles should be AFD'd as well; I've no disagreement there. Practically, the cutoff point has been a huge deal, the subject of constant, and I mean constant, daily, even hourly, edit warring. The article can never be salvagable because everybody wants their own interpretation of "tall" to be enforced, and this is perfectly reasonable for everyone to edit war over because the cutoff point is arbitrary. There was never a compromise or consensus settled upon, and that's why AFD happened over and over, and when it became apparent that no consensus would ever form, that's why the last AFD finally came down as close. It's encyclopedia information, sure. Include that information in the articles of the people themselves. They should have their heights in their articles. Thus no information need be lost. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems pretty ridiculous for someone to look for "tallest people" only to find that the list has been deleted due to debates concerning the bottom of the list. So the topic itself is not fundamentally flawed, but the article got deleted just because of certain Wikipedians' attitude? Then the argument that the list is arbitrary is only secondary to the fact that people have taken advantage of said arbitrariness. If arbitrariness were the real core issue, then why haven't the delete proponents pushed other such lists for AfD in order to be consistent and to benefit Wikipedia as a whole? It wouldn't be making a WP:POINT because the argument is supposedly strong. Pomte 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - given the subjectivity inherent in the title, the closer made a good call.--Doc^g 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. First rate close showing full understanding of the debate. The article was inherently subjective and generally pointless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which is exactly this list was. WJBscribe 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse recreating. For reasons mentioned above. Also that deleting this article opens up a big can of worms for deleting other articles. Yet another reason is that clearer consensus ought to have been sought than the non-consensus that was reached before deleting an article that has already gone through numberious AfD's. Mathmo ^Talk 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments to keep did not answer the arguments to delete. So consensus was there, even if several people said "keep!", they did not provide sufficient counterargument. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate see List of the most obese humans, so recreate as List of the tallest humans. Wjhonson 09:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not AFD part 2. The discussion here is whether the AFD was properly closed. That is all. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore history The arguments that this is not notable or subjective are facetious. We already have world's records in all sorts of things. Perhaps there are too many entries here, but that can be addressed by undue weight. There is no need to delete the entire entry. Wjhonson 09:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see [{WP:DRV]] and see what the purpose of this discussion is. It's not to debate the merits of the article. — coelacan talk — 20:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the closing admin's reason for deletion was essentially that criticism of the article is not addressed, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss the merit of such criticisms. Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would have voted for deletion, but the closing admin seems to have acted improperly as there was no consensus. I would suggest that this admin should lose his or her deletion privileges. Pinoakcourt 20:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a tad drastic. I agree there was no concensus to delete at the discussion and this is the main reason I requested this be placed here. However if it was an honest mistake or misinterpretation I don't think Proto needs to lose privileges. A warning of "don't do it again" should suffice, unless this becomes some kind of pattern.--T. Anthony 03:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for even a warning. Consensus was followed. Just because some people show up and yell "keep!" doesn't mean they are providing arguments, so their !votes don't count. There were strong arguments for deletion. Those arguments were not sufficiently answered. How much clearer can it get? — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think many of us disagree that concensus was followed. You seem to be saying that concensus happens when keep voters fail to outargue the deleters thoroughly enough. I don't think that's what it means at all as this would make "delete" the default position. There was a great deal of valid arguments and counterarguments with neither side predominating really. This means "no concensus" as far as I know. That you dismissed or disliked keep arguments is your prerogative, but it doesn't create a concensus. (And yes I said I'm done with you, but this is as much for others as your benefit).--T. Anthony 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Coelacan, please refrain from such derogatory comments that portray a significant number of users as nothing more than whiny, hysterical people who do nothing but repeat the same exclamation without providing rational arguments. You do not have a monopoly on the truth! Black Falcon 02:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn and consider the two articles together Though WP may be inconsistent, it shouldn't be making opposite formal decisions on two almost identical cases on the same day. This is the sort of thing appeal procedures are for, and the only fair thing is to do it over. DGG 05:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The other article only passed because it didn't receive as much attention. When this DRV is over, list of tall women can be relisted and get sufficient attention this time. There's no reason to restore this article just to delete the other one. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is your opinion. If you're so confident that the consensus is delete, why not restore this article and relist both together (as should have probably been done in the first place)? Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion and agree with closing admins statement. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, subjectivity of the bottom end cutoff is one thing, but this is not a fundamentally flawed topic. There are world records, scholarly studies, and scores of news reports all devoted to the subject of unusually tall people. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not AFD part 2. The discussion here is whether the AFD was properly closed. That is all. — coelacan talk — 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the reason behind the deletion was inappropriate or unjustified by WP policy/guidelines/convention, then that means the discussion was inappropriately closed. "AfD part 2" is irrelevant here. Black Falcon 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But Night Gyr is not arguing any policy that I can see. — coelacan talk — 22:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin closed it as delete instead of no consensus because he felt the list fundamentally violated policy. The list doesn't fundamentally violate policy through excessive subjectivity, as the subject has obviously been studied extensively, and some form of the list would be valid. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proto cites, above, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. If "tall" is subjective, then the list is inherently indiscriminate. That's a policy it violates, in addition to WP:NOR regarding what "tall" is supposed to be, which I argued in the AFD. Also, from Proto's AFD closing rationale: "The arguments to keep are very poor in comparison with those for deletion. Nobody has succesfully refuted the chief reason for deletion"; that's WP:CONSENSUS. There were a number of !votes for keep, but they didn't answer the problems raised, problems founded in NOT and NOR and since AFD is not a vote, the arguments are what decide it. — coelacan talk — 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tall men does not directly fall under any classes of articles listed under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and the bottom of the list being subjective does not mean the list as a whole is indiscriminate. Pomte 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admin closed the debate because, according to him, the arguments for delete were not addressed by other editors. To disagree with that claim is to disagree with the closing admin's interpretation of "consensus" and is therefore very relevant here. Black Falcon 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the GNU Free Documentation License (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|RfD)

The arguments for and against this redirect were laid out in the RfD discussion. Those arguments boil down to an assertion that this redirect meets criterion 4 of the "avoid deleting such redirects" section of Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect? Reviewing the discussion, I do not see any reasonable way that the discussion can be interpreted as having had consensus for deletion.
The closer added the comment that "Per Google, there are no links outside of Wikipedia to this redirect" and appears to have given it considerable weight in the decision. Had this comment been added during the discussion period, I would strongly have disputed it. Google is fundamentally unable to make such an assertion about inbound links. Google does not return hits based on the hidden html of a page. But even if you could run such a search, it would still miss any links that are 1) archived offline, 2) on academic or other pages excluded from spidering or 3) on internal websites which Google can't index. Rossami (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closing admin. This redirect meets criteria 5 of the deletion reasons of the page Rossami references. The objection that Rossami raised during the debate was the risk of breaking existing links. Despite Rossami's statement above, Google is able to detect links in the HTML of a page and has a specified search operator (see link: help) for that purpose. The link is not used outside of Wikipedia and RockMFR fixed all the Wikipedia links. I weighed the objections that Rossami raised and decided the risk was extremely low and did not overcome the standard practice of deleting cross-namespace redirects. If we are to accept Rossami's argument about the risk of archived, offline, non-spidered, & internal website links, then no redirect could ever be deleted. We will never be able to prove that a bookmark to a page does not exist. We can, however, extrapolate that if there are no public links, then the odds of significant private links are extremely, extremely small. Furthermore, I stand by "The text is original source material and, per WP:NOT, doesn't belong in article space or masquerading as an article." -- JLaTondre 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misspoke above. I should have said that "Google does not reliably return hits based on the hidden html of a page." While it is theoretically feasible to search for a link, that is a highly fallible process. For example, I just attempted to use google to find links to several sites which I know to be linked from pages which I know to have been indexed. (Targets containing link: [1], [2]. Search: [3]) Google is returning no hits even though I am looking at the source code in another window and can see the link right there. I am unconvinced that this aspect of the google test is sufficiently reliable to conclude that there are no inbound links. Rossami (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like http://www.queenrightcolonies.com is a page without any content. I'm not sure that represents a valid example as it's possible Google may discard it. I'm willing to concede, though, that any Google search (text, link, or otherwise) is not going to be perfect. I do believe, however, that a lack of results gives a pretty good indication of somethings relative use. -- JLaTondre 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Odd... That's a small business site that worked recently. I wonder if he knows that his server is down. Regardless, here's another test, this time from a Wikipedia page. (Google cache of our Beekeeping page demonstrating that the page was indexed [4], Google search for the first in the list of external links [5], Search for the second link (59 hits but not the Wikipedia article) [6]). Finding things via the google link-search can be evidence. Not finding things is, unfortunately, not reliable evidence. Rossami (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The link was a cross space redirect to Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not allow cross space redirects for very good reasons. If we have this as a redirect, it is (as JLaTondre states) masquerading as an article. Such a text dump is not an encyclopaedic article. A link from GNU Free Documentation License might be appropriate. Proto::► 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The established procedure for cross-namespace redirects is to find an appropriate target within article space and add a ((selfref)). ~ trialsanderrors 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikilobbying is a practice which has been known to occur, and while the word may be relatively unknown, it is at least debatable whether it is deserving of its own entry. To summarily delete it as it was without allowing any time for discussion seems very arbitrary. At the very least, it should've been allowed some time for discussion before being deleted. TV4Fun 07:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Wikilobbying is clearly a real practice that impacts the integrity of this encyclopedia. All the endorse votes below that talk about this not being a real phenomenon yet just underscore the need for an article about it-- so they can look it up. The fact that the page hasn't yet had real content to this effect has been made irrelevant since nobody can create real content due to the protection. Furthermore, I'd encourage everyone here to stop sounding so sanctimonious about being administrators on wikipedia and get a sense of humor. nwesfd 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually there is a place for you to edit: User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying. You can improve the article, make it a good article, add sources and when it is deemed worthy it could be moved to the mainspace. There's nothing stopping you. The mainspace though has to abide to the rules and this article fails WP:N, WP:NEO, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. And to defend us "sanctimonious" people, I see that none of the overturners have cited any policy and most are new users likely unfamiliar with these policies. Gdo01
    • Comment This is a stretch. The cited TV4Fun page clearly satisfies WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL; The sources listed are reliable and most certainly not speculation. The guidelines for avoiding WP:NEO ("Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research...") do not apply since the phenomenon has been laid out in pretty unambiguous terms. Lastly, the claim of WP:N is redundant given that it cites WP:NEO as a guideline; Furthermore, it is clear there is something notable here, as evidenced by the vigorousness of this debate. I appreciate you pointing me to these guidelines, but find it condescending to dismiss my comment based on my account's date of registration. nwesfd 04:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion truthyjunk. JuJube 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This may have come from Colbert and I understand that he isn't a great friend of Wikipedia and that administrators have likely been very busy tonight because of him and will likely be very busy in the next few days because of him. But Wikilobbying is a real practice, from notable individuals brushing up their own articles to Microsoft paying people to make them look better. It's a remarkably unusual type of information lobbying because people who look up information get it from Wikipedia--even if it was Joe Shmoe pushing position x for company y who wrote the informaiton that they're getting. Colbert may have caused a stir with naming this, but the practice exists and needs an article and Colbert has little to do with it, though he does a fair amount of Wikilobbying himself. TStein 10:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The contents were, successively, "here it is.", "first.", "Save the elephants!" and "Save the elephants! YEA!". Of course it was correct to delete these articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — Neologism. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — Let's wait until this actually makes news like truthiness did. Not everything Colbert says is magic. Wikiality never became popular and had hardly any media presence. This word may follow the same path to oblivion. If this does become popular, there can always be another deletion review. Gdo01 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per WP:NEO dposse 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid deletions under criteria G1-3. If someone wants to create an actual article in their userspace, we can discuss unsalting so that it can be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable at AfD, but since we're discussing the deleted article not the neologism itself, that's not necessary yet. Eluchil404 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse deletion per previous endorsement arguments. Absolutely no evidence this "word" is notable, and just because Stephen Colbert says it's a word does not make it so. --Coredesat 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I personally feel that it should be included on the Show's page, unless there are enough examples and discussion to warrant a full, fleshed-out page, and not just another stub. However, the term should not be ignored. Perhaps something like "On the 29 January 2007 show, Colbert invented the term Wikilobbying which he defined as 'The act of paying people to edit Wikipedia in order to be more favorable for their cause'." That kind of thing.須藤 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as per user:Gdo01. -- Zanimum 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Non-notable neologism not made any more notable by Colbert's antics. No evidence of use of the word elsewhere, or that the practice is widespread. WJBscribe 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for now. At this point this is patent nonsense at worst, unverifiable original research at best. If and when there's a substantial body of verifiable secondary literature (beyond the Blog Of The Day), this issue can be revisited. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse User:Suto and User:Gdo01 have the right idea; mention it on the show's article, recreate if this ever makes national headlines. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse. This was closed correctly. Besides, Stephen Colbert makes up words almost every week at this point. With the exception of truthiness, they've all proved non-notable outside of the very narrow context of the Report. Even if Wikipedia was a crystal ball, (which it isn't) precident would not be on this article's side. -- Bailey^(talk) 19:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Whether we like it or not, this is now a legitimate term. It should be closely monitored; but it must be allowed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.138.213 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn I believe this is a real term and should not be deleted, I don't see how creating a page for a real term is vandalism. If anything, lock the page to new and anonymous users.Preeeemo 19:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WJD. --Gwern (contribs) 19:52 30 January 2007 (GMT)
• Overturn and protect. This term, although edited by childish individuals, deserves its wiki page as mush as any other page here. Rsween7 User has no edits outside of this discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
• Endorse deletion, process was followed appropriately, given that the topic is just a neologism. No valid reason for overturning was given by the nominator nor by the four Overturn !votes so far. Being "a real term", "a legitimate term" is no claim to belonging in Wikipedia. At most, these are arguments for inclusion in Wiktionary; and multiple independent reliable sources would be needed for the Wiktionary editors to consider it. No new sources have been suggested beyond those considered in the AfD. Barno 20:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and a big welcome to Wikipedia! for all those who wish to see this kept. Proto::► 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion. As Jitse Niesen points out, there have been no substantive versions of this page. The deleted versions were all clear vandalism or user tests. ((Deletedpage)) protection seems a bit premature but based on the definitions offered above I believe that if the page were created in good faith, it would fail an AFD discussion as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious endorse. The article never contained any content about Wikilobbying, so nothing about Wikilobbying was deleted. The article only ever contained nonsense, and nonsense can obviously be speedied. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn protection. While it is true that in the few seconds before the page was protected, no one had yet put up any actual content, that does not mean that given a chance, other editors would not have put up a meaningful definition. Granted, the page may have warranted speedy deletion, but protecting it from being recreated seems rather unfair. In so doing you have prevented any debate on the topic by ensuring no one could put up any content which might at least warrant some discussion before deleting it. TV4Fun 21:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's always the case with protection. I see no reason why this particular article is any different from all the other protected articles. You are free to write an article in your userspace, at User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying, and come back here when you feel that it's good enough to be in an article. Until then there's no reason to unprotect this article. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC) PS. I have struck your bolded !vote, since your nom already counts as a vote. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn the protection of the page It's the truth. Wikilobbying is now and will continue to be a widely used and legitimate term. This is the true nature of language; words are created, and words are forgotten and lost. Languages evolve and die, dialects come from out of nowhere. Language is constantly in a state of flux and is constantly updated as Wikipedia should be, considering how many people access and use it, and how much it deals with terminology among other things. Overturning the protection of this page would be giving people a chance to explore and define a new term that has significant meaning. Nothing will be hurt by this, it's just provision of information. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) User has very few edits outside of this discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the beautiful prose. A small note: nothing comes out of nowhere, not even dialects. But on-topic again: if you are confident that a worthwhile article can be written about the subject, you are free to do so in your userspace and come back here when you're confident that it is encyclopedic. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, you know what I meant. Yeah, I'll work on it, but one of the points in the beautiful prose was that people need to contribute to the meaning of the term, thus the whole point and beauty of using an open source tool in the first place. That's the whole reason why people are fighting for this, that's the whole reason why people want to use Wikipedia, that's the whole reason why people come here and don't just use Encarta. Igtgtfgtgmc 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the point. Wikipedia is not where things go to become notable, and as I said, Stephen Colbert using this word in his show does not make it a word, nor does it make the word appear in a dictionary (which Wikipedia also is not). --Coredesat 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for "Overturners": What this discussion any different from this one? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, protologism. -- Vary | Talk 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Yes, I'd say this discussion is different, this term carries quite a bit of significance and should really be considered. I agree with Igtgtfgtgmc 100%, great argument and every point is valid. Wikipedia says it's open source, but it's more like some parents taking a bunch of kids to a park and not letting them leave the sandbox. Js8669 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) User's first contribution. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's content is totally free: you can reprint it anywhere you'd like, whether it's modified or intact, without paying a royalty. You can even sell it if you want to. This is not the same as saying anyone can do anything they want on this particular website, which does in fact have rules, despite offering users a relatively large degree of freedom. See the difference? To the new users involved in this discussion, I recommend checking out What Wikipedia is Not, which will get you caught up pretty quickly on what Wikipedia aims to cover and what's outside of our scope. If you want a place to define terms which have not yet caught on, you can try Uncyclopedia, Urbandictionary, or even the Colbert-themed Wikiality.com. -- Bailey^(talk) 01:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I want the article on wikipedia. It would be informative and useful.Dapoloplayer 01:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, if only because there isn't any useful content to restore, and per WP:NEO it probably wouldn't pass AfD right now anyway. Personally I'd rather have this as a protected redirect to The Colbert Report than a ((deletedpage)), though. BryanG^(talk) 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Colbert saying something does not make it notable. And Wikipedia is not a place for everything which is true. -Amark moo! 03:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious endorse. The article never contained any content about Wikilobbying, so nothing about Wikilobbying was deleted. The article only ever contained nonsense, and nonsense can obviously be speedied. Agreed with: "Aecis^Brievenbus 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" Mike wiki 04:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For those who have argued that the wikilobbying article had no meaningful content to delete, I have put up a more meaningful article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TV4Fun/Wikilobbying. I would've put something similar on the main page, but I could not type fast enough to do so before it was protected TV4Fun 06:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Neither source in this article mentions the "word" in question. I still endorse the deletion. --Coredesat 12:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and ban the socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, but use the link for wikilobbying to redirect to the reliability of Wikipedia page. While the word itself does not seem to meet Wikipedia article standards, the phenomenon it purportedly denotes is real enough to warrant attention. Colbert did cite a Washington Post article about Microsoft's attempt to pay for their entry to be whitewashed, for example. --Zenswashbuckler 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That actually sounds like a good idea. TV4Fun 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Hasn't had any media coverage yet. Not every word said on TV needs an article - just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't make it anything special. Wickethewok 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, but redirect to List of neologisms on The Colbert Report unless the word itself does actually take off, thus deserving of a page of its own. --Mysterioususer 17:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris thompson(business) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

this is a bio relating to the company cmtd. this article is an essential part of that other page Ccthompson

• Endorse my deletion, article made no assertion of notability - being "the cofounder of real estate company CMTDEnterprises" does not even go anywhere near fufilling WP:BIO. The company is also non-notable, and was deleted as an A7, making Thompson's "notability" for being co-founder basically zero, by logic... Oh, and the article is at Chris Thompson (business), where both Teke and I A7-ed it. If this info was to be included on Wikipedia, it should be in the main corporation article (which is currently deleted per WP:CORP). Daniel.Bryant 11:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Apparant autobiography. MER-C 12:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion (lets hope 232 other people don't as well!). Agree that is not an assertion of notabilty, clearly appropriate for speedy deletion. WJBscribe 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid speedy. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Just because he owns a company doesn't mean he should have an article, the article/person must pass WP:BIO. Also, deletion endorsed as per WP:AUTO and since the company also fails WP:CORP. Iced Kola^(Mmm...) 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion no assertion of notability. Sarah 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashes Before Your Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted and locked because no verifiable info was available - that info has now become available so the article may be created: http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=012907_17. -- Wikipedical 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if there's a valid speedy in the bunch, especially since the first was for "crystal ball." --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list. I'd like to think this has no chance of passing an AfD, even with that dinky little source, but we have far too many people who are willing to keep one sentence stubs because there will be more sources later. -Amark moo! 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Unsalt but not Overturn' - point of deletion and protection is to hold the article (which had been repeatedly deleted) until article is verifiable per the policy;no need for the beauraucracy of a deletion review once information has come to light. Article has been unprotected and is ready for creation --Robdurbar 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, requiring a review for an article that was deleted (justifiably) because it was about a future event with no verifiable info seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. The reason for deletion has gone away, should be a no brainer. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, allow creation. Don't immediately send it to AFD with a mindless 'procedural nomination'. Give the creators some chance to create the article, and then its existence can be assessed (through AFD, if necessary). A quick look at newly available sources suggests that it would survive an AFD discussion now, as long as the article uses the available references. Proto::► 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I ever spent more than 30 minutes starting an article, and I've never had one tagged for deletion. This about the time you need to make sure an article meets our notability guideline. ~ trialsanderrors 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) The first speedy-deletion (on 31 Dec 06) was in error. Crystal-ballery is not a speedy-deletion criterion. The second speedy (15 Jan) was also in error. The "re-post" criterion may not be used when the only prior deletions were speedy or prod. I see that a stub has now been created in place of the ((deletedpage)) notice. The stub does still appear to fall afoul of WP:NOT. List to AFD. Rossami (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Nine Angles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Overturn please? The vote count was in favour of keep (4-2 with 1 other person commenting), and the AfD was started by a sockpuppet. Notability is not an issue as there are several third-party references to ONA, and the article itself had references at the bottom of the article (check the Wayback Machine) - although the article was, perhaps, not very thoroughly referenced. This sockpuppet seems to have been used to delete a few articles similar to the ONA article, perhaps for religious reasons.

72.12.133.163 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite overturn. Sources appear to be legit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I mean, please overturn the deletion. Or, undelete article, reinstate article, etc.; sorry, I'm new to this process. The point is, it was a vote to keep, but the article got deleted anyway.72.12.133.163 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Caution over sources The first two books listed in the google books search above are self-published/vanity press works: [http:// www.lulu.com/content/115883] (Lulu.com) [http: //www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=1533] (Xlibris). The third book is from a reputable publisher, but only has a couple of passing mentions of the group. Checking other books listed too. Bwithh 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend overturnrelist overturn and stubify If the deleted version was like the Answers mirrored version, it would seem to be a gross violation of WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX (adding a bibliography at the end of an article is often a misleading and flimsy figleaf for a mass of unsourced content). However, there seem to be at least some ok sources available. If the decision is overturned and article is kept, recommend stubification in order to purge the OR/SOAPBOX material and the reliance on an unreliable website (Yes, a book from "Thormynd Press" by Anton Long is referenced to support the website - but a google for "Thormynd Press" suggests that it is a small underground publisher dedicated to texts promoting Satanism and Neo-Nazism which are not generally available to the public e.g.[7][http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/essential-guide-young-aryans-72738.html?s=66bc58e836a7b61463b7fd76d1d86058&t=72738][8]. The reliability of this source and Anton Long is questionable at best). Bwithh 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your attention. The answers.com page is indeed a mirror of the ONA article that was here, and I'm amazed it was that long. Please note, the vote was 4-2 against deletion, and the instigating comment was from a sockpuppet, yet the article was deleted. That's my point in all this. As for WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX, I have only glossed over the content right now, but the old article does actually summarize some points from the ONA writings - but also, yes, has large sections worthy of snippage. To me, that would suggest editing was required and not deletion via sockpuppet. Maybe 25% of the original article was good. 72.12.133.163 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, debate about whether or not sources are good should occur at AfD, not here. It really should have been relisted in the first place instead of closed. -Amark moo! 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree about relisting (changing vote). Disagree strongly about discussion about source quality evaluation not taking place at DRV - yes DRV is primarily about process (and introduction of new sources which should be evaluated too), but considering sources already introduced is an integral but often undervalued part of the process. Not considering sources here suggests decisions or endorsed should be overturned on the basis of "look, the article has so many in-line references (but don't look at them)", "there are a bunch of google hits (but don't look at them)", "there's a nicely typed bibliography (but don't look at the books listed)" etc. Arguments about encyclopedic notability and interpretation of guidelines, I agree, should be left to afd. Whether afds under review considered sources reasonably and whether sources are substantive and reliable is a valid topic for discussion here. Bwithh 15:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On third thought, going back to my original !vote Bwithh 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of thought for one little article.72.12.133.163 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Relisting as per Amarkov. Mathmo ^Talk 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not objecting to a relist Nomination was about a vote count, which is irrelevant. Additionally, this the AFD discussion was severly affected by accounts with few edits, so it is tough to gauge consensus of established editors that understand our policies and guidelines from the dicussion. Admins are authorized to discount the opinions of new editors, and are expected to follow guidelines and policy as illustrated by the discussion, so this is an endorsable close. But with more established users here opining relist than opining at all in the original AFD, I won't object to relisting. GRBerry 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The evidence offered in the AfD by new users should have still been considered, no? Davidicke 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]