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

Not informative Borisu 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a psychological article stub with included short definition of a well known phenomenon in psychology. And even refrenced the scientific sources. (http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/224). User Jaranda deleted it instantly, Any attempt to contact the user failed. I think it is the matter of wikipedia that articles are growing over time. They cannot be immediately complete on their first revision. Still the article was informative enough to explain the term.

• overturn deletion gave enough context to be meaningful. --W.marsh 01:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. Any plausible claim of notability should be enough to undo a speedy. Though if the article has only the one single citation, I'm not sure I would vote to keep it at AfD, given the apparent complexity of the concept and the claimed brevity of the article. No objection to keeping a larger and better-referenced article on this topic, though. EdJohnston 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - a sourced article on a scientific theory should not be speedied. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only content was the "In psychology, the effect of an individual preserving his/her attitude even when he/she is presented with facts that contradict it" a link, and some tags, which I deleted as A1, I undeleted it but I recommend AFD. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Image:CallasVioletta1956.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|copy of image|IfD)

This image was originally deleted because there were several "free" alternatives at commons. All three others images have now been deleted as improperly licensed, and probably copyvios. As such, the basis for deletion no longer applies. The Evil Spartan 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and I'm the one who deleted it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so just restore it. (I assume this one is not a copyvio.) DGG (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, a copy of the article is at Answers.com. Of the images now deleted, is the copyright holder known and, if so, has anyone made contact? --Iamunknown 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wanted to create this article and I have seen that it has been speedy-deleted twice because of being a non-notable company. Obviously I do not know the quality of those two deleted articles but I do not think they deserve to be speedy-deleted. Bicing is not a company but a service of Barcelona City council (and thus it is payed with my taxes) in order to have an amount of public bicycles and use them as an ecologist transport. Other cities such as Paris with Vélib' have copied the system. SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say undelete and merge with Vélib' and similar articles into Bicycle rental program; I don't see any potential for expansion in articles about a service which is one month (or a few months) old. - Mike Rosoft 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Straightforward descriptive article, but needs 3rd party sources. Perhaps there is enough on these individual programs to stand on their own--they usually have newspaper coverage. A merge can be discussed after its undeleted.DGG (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per DGG. If there are newspaper articles it can stay. EdJohnston 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete- per EdJohnston. --Boricuaeddie ^hábleme 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and then either expand/source or merge to a general article about these. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. User:stefanbcn (in german and spanish only) I wrote big part of the Article about Bicing in German , which later on was merged with other similar schemes like Vienna, Lyon and Stuttgart (call a bike). My german wikiarticle contains quite a lot of even english sources to fulfill the 3rd party source demand mentioned by DGG user stefanbcn for german and spanish version

[1] older official site in english(not updated anymore) [2] (origibnal bicing page in german now merged into the too general term of bike rental 62.57.7.180 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) stefanbcn PS quote:I don't see any potential for expansion in articles about a service which is one month (or a few months) old, yes there is quite a lot of potential, as this is social phenomen as well, with 80.000 having paid so far within a short time the yearly fee, the german article as well names all the companies offering these services so there is no advertising danger signed stefanbcn[reply]

• Well, it is the first time I go in a deletion review and I did not expect such a success. Of course Bicing has had an important repercussion into Catalan and Spanish media (16 articles in El País.com). I am not sure if it should be merged with similar experiences in other cities such as Vélib', Vélo'v, Call a Bike, OYBike or Stockholm City bikes because maybe the system is different, but the generic page seems to be Community bicycle program, especially in section #Public-Private Partnership.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 08:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W Esposito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article is about translator of new bestselling Bible translation The Apostles' Bible. It is important to know who and what is author of Bible translation. The article does not fit condition for speedy deletion at all. This person is widely known in Christian and widely searchable by Google.Tomakiv 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) By the same administrator User:NawlinWiki, who deleted this article is proposed to delete The Apostles' Bible.[reply]

• undelete--Tomakiv 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The main assertion of importance is that he translated The Apostles' Bible, which is currently proposed for deletion due to lack of sources. Is there any chance these two articles can be cited to reliable sources? --W.marsh 13:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AuthorHouse publisher, Joel Kalvesmaki, Ph.D. in Early Christian Studies, Catholic University, Amazon, and many others. Wikipedia has articles almost about every Bible translation (see Modern_English_Bible_translations and their translators).--Tomakiv 14:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial links are not reliable sources.-Wafulz 15:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company. NawlinWiki 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia has articles about bestselling books and their authors.--Tomakiv 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep deleted

He did not translate the Apostle's Bible. According to his own posted bio at [3], he is "http://www.apostlesbible.com/bio.pdf" "In the works is a fresh new revision of The Apostles’ Bible " and also he has made a previous translation, [self-published] "by Author House, and are very popular, mostly by word of mouth." Normally, a Bible translator would be notable, as they are generally distinguished scholars, with extensive other published work & academic and church positions of great prominence, and so on. He is however "mostly self-taught". [4] is in my opinion a RS, and lists his edition as "a light revision". DGG (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has studied Koine Greek for seven years to perform translation. You need to give scholar witness that his work is nothing but re-publishing. Person can reduces his own work to be shy, so his own statement about his work is not acceptible.--Tomakiv 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need to find a "scholar witness" to *disprove* Mr. Esposito's notability. You're the proponent of the article. *You* have the burden of finding reliable sources showing his notability. NawlinWiki 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not. The article was deleted by you without good reason. I told you might google his name to see notability and sources.--Tomakiv 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Translating a bible is effectively, but not transparently, an assertion of notability. That said, as far as I can tell, this translation itself lacks any notability yet, so deletion appears to be correct. GRBerry 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your opionion about notability of translation is a private opinion. --Tomakiv 20:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it means that I tried Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar and found zero independent and reliable sources with a non-trivial mention of the topic. We need independent reliable sources to write a policy compliant article, which is why they are the basic standard for notability, a guideline with community consensus that attempts to identify the requirements imposed by the interaction of the policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. (See Wikipedia:Independent sources for a longer explanation of why the sources need to be independent.) GRBerry 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Books published by vanity presses and their authors never seem to survive at AfD. There appears to be an overwhelming consensus to delete such articles; as such, A7 as it was applied here would not seem unreasonable. No opinion from me, FWIW. Heather 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability. A self-published book is not enough to go on. Reviews in the mainstream press would make a difference, but I didn't find any. EdJohnston 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I can not see a real claim of notability here. There are no verifiable reliable sources. Would be a complete waste of time for an Afd since it does not have independent reliable sources. FloNight 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion per EdJohnston and FloNight. JoshuaZ 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Haas Was Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Wow, I'm speechless. Not only there was no consensus to delete on AfD, but the reasoning for the closure is just ridiculous. I quote, "there is insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to merit inclusion". Yeah, right. Apparently User:Ck_lostsword was too lazy to read the article in question. I quote:

• Cinematical[5] lists EHWR as viral marketing for the untitled J.J. Abrams movie, and suggests that Ethan Haas will be a main character in said movie.
• Cinemablend[6] and RopeOfSilicon.com[7] similarly report a connection between the two.
• Ain’t It Cool News[8], however, reports that there is no such connection, from an email from J.J. Abrams.
• iF Magazine[9], IGN[10], Film.com[11], Chud.com[12], and New York Entertainment[13] have all reported on EHWR and Cloverfield together.

(to see the references, look at the deleted edits).

I hereby nominate this for the most ridiculous AfD closure of the year 2007.  Grue  07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and speedy close self per Douglas Adams ('most of it seemed to make some kind of sense at the time') - reading through it again, I completely agree with you. The first time round, as I explained in the summary, I saw a large number of new users and IPs who, it seemed, had simply shown up to say 'I like it' to this article. Also, I wasn't too sure about comment's such as Grue's 'what is the point of undeleting now only to recreate later' - since the point for discussion was whether the article as it stood was suitable for inclusion. Anyhoo, is there a process for me simply to undelete and change the summary (or for another admin to do) immediately? No need to put this through the process, since it will simply be overturned :). ck lostsword•T•C 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think you can just re-close it. Thank you for being able to admit your mistake, that's a very useful quality for an admin.  Grue  08:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get the AFD noted on the article's talk page so we don't go through this again? Good call Ck. Neil ╦ 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper close. This was not a one sided debate and this is completely out of process. Crossmr 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I was one of the users who argued for delete, and pretty much every arguement for keep/delete were being discussed and the speedy close essentially cut off all discussion. This nomination had a strong case per WP:NOT#GUIDE and I dont think it should've been closed with haste Corpx 06:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - it was a common sense decision. had I seen this AFD I would have done the same thing. ugen64 06:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy keep. The constant challenges towards everybody who argued "keep" made the entire AFD utterly and unquestionably disruptive. Consensus was ridiculously clear. No point in running this process just for running the process. Nomination was utterly ill-informed since he started citing "ILIKEIT" before any arguments had been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Its a debate, not a vote. In fact even one of the people arguing keep admitted that it violated the policy but felt it was notable enough to be kept (which the policy makes no allowance for) That alone should indicate there is need for debate there.--Crossmr 13:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Endorse per common sense.  Grue  07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Query perhaps this disagreement could be resolved by transwiking the text to wikibooks? >Radiant< 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That was one of the options being discussed in the AFD. When there are objections to a keep brought up, especially on policy grounds, the best thing to do is to let the discussion ensue, instead of a hasty speedy close per "common sense". Corpx 09:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems to be the editors goal -- see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sumo terms. If the editor feels that glossaries and rules should not be in wikipedia, is trying on a case by case basis to get long standing aricles deleted the correct procedure, or is it a violation of WP:POINT?XinJeisan 15:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to change policy, but apply existing policy to existing articles. There are way too many articles on wikipedia to consider the existence of articles (even long term) precedent for keeping them unless they've survived an AfD. We have a family of wiki sites here, some of which go very underused because everyone wants to keep everything on wikipedia. As I also pointed out even some people who thought it should be kept agreed that it did violate the policy but though chess was notable enough not to delete it. Yet there is no allowance for that in the policy, hence why we had an AfD.--Crossmr 16:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not the point, though - these articles are sub-articles, split out of the main chess article. You might as well AfD American football rules for the same reason. Somehow I think that might be kept, as well. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Were this kind of detail part of the main article, I'd recommend its removal from the article. I think there is room for historical discussion and recording of chess strategy as well as discussion about modern trends, without going in to the minutia of the various strategies and how they work and how good each one is (you'll note the opinion about the quality of some of the strategies there), etc. There is a difference between a guide to strategy and an encyclopedic article about chess strategy. I don't really think this is anywhere near a encyclopedic article.--Crossmr 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a "guide to strategy", though. Admittedly, a full article about chess strategy would stretch to thousands of pages, but this merely an overview of the subject. I'll admit it could be written better (and I'm quite happy to look at that one myself), but it certainly isn't a how-to or an instruction manual. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Probably slightly hastily closed, but of the three articles here, this is the one where WP:NOT#GUIDE really doesn't apply. Encyclopedic article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the keep. This is an importnat article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• What's here to debate? Endorse speedy keep. - Mike Rosoft 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• O dear gosh, overturn - hardly WP:CSK material. Not to mention the nominator is right - this is a complete violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. The Evil Spartan 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a reasonable close. A discussion of how to play the game written as a tutorial is not encyclopedic; an introductory discussion of the immense subject of chess strategy is. DGG (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a discussion though. Chess strategy certainly is immense and has changed over the years, but this article doesn't contain any of that. it simply teaches the user about current popular strategies and things to think about during a game.--Crossmr 17:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, pretty clear where that one was headed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep This is an important article - even if not cited, there are probably dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of reliable sources for chess strategy (a quick search for books on the subject at amazon.com show 2000+ hits and the first few pages all seem relevant) - if not for some size limitations - an encyclopedia would have all this material, and the tactics, etc. in a big article chess; since we do have these limitations this seems the best way to break up a substantial body of knowledge into managable sizes. Carlossuarez46 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an important topic, but there was unresolved discussion in progress about whether the article fundamentally violates WP:NOT#GUIDE, and whether the article serves primarily as instruction or as encyclopedic aid to understanding the rest of the chess articles. I don't think it was sufficiently WP:SNOWBALL, the only policy cited, to require the speedy-keep. As pointed out above, the AfD met none of the four criteria of WP:CSK, so overturn on technical grounds. Relist, even though it will end either in "keep" or "keep and rewrite to be cited history of chess strategy, not description/guide of current strategy". People tend toward speedy Keeps, Deletes, and DRV Endorses more than our policies and guidelines call for. Let things run their five days unless there's a problem covered by CSD or CSK, or urgent enough to go to the admin noticeboard. Barno 23:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Admins should be strongly discouraged from closing debates with legitimate arguments on both sides as WP:SNOW (one way or the other). It does no good, and it (reasonably enough) annoys those who have argued the other way and feel they are being ignored. What's done is done, and the article should be allowed to stand as common sense, but this was an unnecessary close. Chick Bowen 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong use of WP:SNOW, per User:Chick Bowen. No need to overturn the Keep in this case, but a contested AfD with a suggestion that policy might favor Delete shouldn't be closed early as Keep. EdJohnston 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Chick Bowen and EdJohnston. While Keep is clearly the correct result, it becomes disruptive to snowball close AfDs really early and have them drug to DRV for a retrial. This happens too much. Out-of-process closures inflame heated debates, they drag the process out rather than simplify it, they disenfranchise good-faith (if often misguided) users. These out-of-process closures are fundamentally bad for the project, because they increase Wikidrama. If it is the right decision, it will still be the right decision on Thursday. It's just not worth it to unilaterally halt the discussion process. --JayHenry 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, even though I'm not sure it should have been closed per WP:SNOW. --Kbdank71 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Encyclopedic topic. Paul August ☎ 16:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep for the reasons on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess strategy. –Sarregouset (Talk) 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. WP:SNOW is clearly applicable here: there was no realistic chance of article deletion, while continuing the AFD was of no benefit, and was causing some rather heated conflicts. Closure was in the interests of the encyclopedia, whereas opening a review wasn't. WP:SNOW derives its authority from WP:IAR, which is policy, so I see no reason it shouldn't be applied in this case. JulesH 11:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Again this was not a one sided debate, out of process close, these were both ongoing debates. Crossmr 05:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I was one of the users who argued for delete, and pretty much every arguement for keep/delete were being discussed and the speedy close essentially cut off all discussion. This nomination had a strong case per WP:NOT#GUIDE and I dont think it should've been closed with haste Corpx 06:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - it was a common sense decision. had I seen this AFD I would have done the same thing. ugen64 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy keep. The constant challenges towards everybody who argued "keep" made the entire AFD utterly and unquestionably disruptive. Consensus was ridiculously clear. No point in running this process just for running the process. Nomination was utterly ill-informed since he started citing "ILIKEIT" before any arguments had been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is not a vote, its a debate. I cited "ILIKEIT" (and rightfully so as you can see from some of the responses) simply to nip in the bud. I all to often see those reasons as a response to AfDs. Many people will choose to completely ignore the reason for deletion and say "its a well written article, keep it". That's hardly a consensus building argument.--Crossmr 13:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Endorse per common sense.  Grue  07:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse keep although I wouldn't have closed early, that's where it was obviously heading. Article should be better referenced though, to make it clear it is summarizing published information about the topic, rather than providing original opinions on it. --W.marsh 13:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I'd say that the majority of Keep votes were not WP:ILIKEIT, but rather disagreement with the nom's imaginative use of WP:NOT as it applies (or doesn't apply, more to the point) to this article. Incidentally WP:NOT does not say "not a game guide" as per the nomination - it says "not a video game guide". I presume the nom must refer to "not an instruction manual", which this hardly is. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So then you'd be okay with me creating a guide to the pokemon trading card game, since its not a video game its not strictly prohibited?--Crossmr 17:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, because that would breach "not an instruction manual", which this article doesn't. It's merely an overview of chess tactics, split out of the main article. No-one could learn to play chess using only this article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep. No one said to keep the article because "ILIKEIT". If you read WP:ILIKEIT, it gives the example of saying that some band out of thousands and thousands should have an article because one editor likes the band a lot. That certainly is not the reason people are saying that these chess articles should be kept. Bubba73 (talk), 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As above, endorse speedy keep. - Mike Rosoft 15:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't like snow closures because the tide of a discussion can always change, and I don't really think it was a speedy candidate. Just in general, I think it's preferable to let discussions run their course, unless it's clearly a bad faith nomination. On the other hand, I think this was an unusually grotesque deletionist excess and an absurd interpretation of WP:NOT. Also a somewhat pointy attempt to dismantle the structure of a FA, so I won't object to the early close. Also, the discussion at Rules of Chess is still open at the moment -- if the tide of discussion changes there (which I highly doubt it will) we can always reconsider the early closure. --JayHenry 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a reasonable close. A reprint of the rules is not encyclopedic; an introductory discussion of them is, as for any other sport. Brittanica and all other print encyclopedias have content just like this, for this and other games. DGG (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep This is an important article - even if not cited, there are probably dozens (hundreds?) of reliable sources for chess tactics (a quick search for books on the subject at amazon.com show 400+ hits and the first few pages all seem relevant) - if not for some size limitations - an encyclopedia would have all this material, and the strategy, etc. in a big article chess; since we do have these limitations this seems the best way to break up a substantial body of knowledge into managable sizes. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as not meeting any of the WP:CSK criteria and relist. Same reasoning as I posted for chess strategy except not much in this section's debate was new rather than just repeating from above. The basic question under discussion should be worked out clearly. One reason is to provide guidelines and precedent for Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Some people want to describe strategy and tactics at length where they're well-documented in hobby 'zine sources (see the sections for each Great Power in Diplomacy (game)), or in the user-submitted-content section of game hobby websites like BoardGameGeek. Other people believe WP:NOT#GUIDE bans anything very close to complete description of the rules, strategy, or tactics of a game; or at least restricts it to encyclopedic summarization of what has appeared in multiple attributable sources. I realize that these two chess articles aren't referenced at all, but should a properly cited game strategy or tactics article (or article section) be kept if it describes the strategic and tactical play like a "game guide"? Or are we limited to "history of Diplomacy strategy", "history of Scrabble tactics", and the like? The speedy-closed discussion might have led to some clarification. I couldn't ask because the AfD was open and closed in thirteen hours while I was away for forty-eight. Barno 00:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article seems to meet CSK 2.1 (obviously frivolous nominations). Not that I've ever even heard of CSK before now, despite contributing regularly to deletion arguments. WP:SNOW is the much more commonly sited reason for closing early, which derives authority of WP:IAR. This article is considered 'top' importance by a well established wikiproject for articles on a notable topic. It is discussed in every encyclopedia I have access to. Deleting it would be crazy, and there was no realistic chance of deletion occurring, so closing it early does no harm. If you feel the subject needs discussion, may I suggest the talk page of WP:NOT as an appropriate venue? JulesH 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, even though as above, I'm not sure it should have been closed per WP:SNOW. --Kbdank71 16:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Encyclopedic topic. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep for the reasons on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess tactics. –Sarregouset (Talk) 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no realistic chance that this article would be deleted. JulesH 11:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The AfD lacked informed comments; the claim was lack of notability, yet the font is heavily used by Wikipedia itself, including MediaWiki:Common.css. (Besides the article links, we also have a number of template links.) A web search for 'Code2000 font' returns tens of thousands of hits, most recommending this font for its broad Unicode coverage and liberal availability. It is unparalleled for its coverage of characters used by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics project, and we recommend it routinely as a solution for "missing character" glyphs. The deleting admin (Sr13 (talk · contribs)) has been informed, but prefers DRV. --KSmrq^T 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am uninformed on this topic but just because Wikipedia uses a font doesn't mean it's notable. If you can find a reliable source that establishes its notability, though, then by all means it deserves an article. ugen64 06:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, X number of google web results due not mean any are reliable sources. I saw nothing non-trivial on a Google News Archive search. --W.marsh 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Code2000 (along with Code2001 and Code2002) is a highly notable font and is certainly deserving of an article. A quick look at a few of the links found in the Google search provided above should be enough to establish notability, [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. It is an important font because it includes a over 60,000 Unicode glyphs [10], [11], making it more complete than, for example Arial Unicode MS [12]. The fact that it is easily downloadable for free as shareware only adds to its ubiquity and importance. It is an important font for mathematics because of its inclusion of special characters and symbols used in mathematical writing [13], [14]. However its importance goes far beyond mathematics. Its multilingual coverage makes it particularly important for untold numbers of writers, readers and scholars of many ancient and obscure or under covered modern languages [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] as well as making it important for multilingual applications [22]. Paul August ☎ 20:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - The links given do not in fact establish notability. They just contain trivial mentions of the font, and are not sources that could be used to write an article. --Ptcamn 07:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I'm persuaded by the comments that Code2000 is valued by many contributors and they were just not aware of the AfD. It is not always easy to weigh usage within Wikipedia against general usage. However this page is clearly not spam or one-sided promotion, and we have article-writing editors who use it. I realize that the page itself, at least the one I can see at answers.com, looks a bit junky, and I assume that those who are voting to Overturn here are prepared to lend some assistance in improving the article if it is restored. EdJohnston 21:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As above, plus it has a significant edit history. —Michael Z. 2007-07-17 07:11 Z

• Overturn - if any Unicode font is notable, then this one. It is cited in pretty much every document explaining how to work with Unicode. The deletion comments seem to think that a review of its (graphical) design quality by mainstream media is necessary to establish notability for a font. That is obviously a fallacy, because extremely widespread use and exceptional character coverage are also factors to take into account. And even seemingly trivial mentions can amount to notability, if there are enough of them. --Latebird 08:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn — a rather brief AfD, closed after five days. Now, votes to overturn equal those for deletion. It looks like there's sufficient notability for this — I use this font regularly, as I often work with wide Unicode ranges — and Wikipedia is not made of paper. — Gareth Hughes 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I couldn't view Wikipedia successfully. Then I learned about Code2000. I installed it. Now I can read almost everything on Wikipedia! This font is very valuable to the Linux user. DavidCBryant 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn extremely notable as Unicode fonts go. dab (𒁳) 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhill & Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Significance, relevance, lack of discussion The article was tagged for speedy deletion, I responded promptly with a NotSoFast tag, there was no substantive discussion on the merits. There is talk on My page. I have since determined that the firm is listed on the NYSE symbol GHL, performed over $100 Billion of M & A work, and revenues of over $300 Million. Admittedly, all of these facts were not in the original article, but I don't want to recreate the article without getting some administrative oversight. Knowsetfree 01:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can cite all of that to reliable sources, just create it in your user space and move it back to the article space when it can stand on its own. There shouldn't be a problem. --W.marsh 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but allow recreation: the original article was a sub-stub with most of its information (or lack thereof) culled from the company's mission statement from its official website. There is really nothing to salvage so one may as well start from scratch; per User:W.marsh, a referenced article would likely not be a speedy candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Wouldn't regulatory forms filed with the SEC by a public company be considered a reliable source? I believe SEC forms such as 10-K and 8-K are filed under criminal penalties for false statements or ommissions. Knowsetfree 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They'd be primary sources and not really the best stuff to cite in an encyclopedia article, I believe. They'd best be cited just to reliably cover what the forms say, if such a thing is relevant to the article. In general we should summarize secondary sources, not primary ones. --W.marsh 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I deleted the article based on content as blatant advertising, and I agree with W. marsh and Kinu - there's no problem with recreation if it is done in a NPOV way. CitiCat 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]