Pokemon species by gender categories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|CfD)

• Category:Pokémon species by gender
• Category:Female-only Pokémon
• Category:Male-only Pokémon
• Category:Genderless Pokémon

Nominator believed that gender played little role in only a small aspect of the Pokemon franchise, two users came forward with more detailed examples of the significant role this feature plays. supporters of the nominator added little to the discussion, characterizing the categories merely as "over-categorization" with no arguments or reasoning to back them up. The closing admin unilaterally closed the debate when a consensus was clearly not evident. ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - clear consensus shown in the discussion. Also, Wikipedia is not a game instruction manual. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your definition of "clear consensus"? --Brandon Dilbeck 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4-1 is pretty clear. Endorse deletion as the information presented on genered Pokemon does not outweigh the overcategorization issue and the closing admin correctly recognized that. Otto4711 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4-1? it's not a vote... if four people came on saying, "Keep b/c pokemon is the best" would you have determined the category was closed correctly as Keep b/c the overall count was 4-1? take a look at WP:CON before giving your own interpretations of consensus. secondly, when deciding if a category is appropriate, people should be looking at WP:CAT and seeing if the category satisfies the 3 criteria presented there (note that "overcategorization" is not a reason to not create a category). the closing admin closed based on majority, not actual discussion which happened to refute the nom's determination that gender was an insignificant aspect of pokemon. these cats satisfied all 3 guidelines -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow, you really might want to step back from this. It's pretty clear from your comments here that you are taking this way too seriously and personally. It appears that you've made up your mind that there wasn't a consensus, so I'll just skip my explanation and go to sleep. --Kbdank71 03:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • if you'd like to explain why you think there was any actual discussion as per ((WP:CON]], i'd be happy to hear it. and to come on, make personal statements about me, and then refuse to even contribute to the discussion is incendiary. i've kept a perfectly level head and not made any personal attacks or said anything out of line. i just happen to prefer to respond to multiple people in the same post. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looks like the correct call from a clear conclusion. Please bear in mind that CFD often reaches consensus with less debate than we see elsewhere in the Xfd spectrum. Spartaz ^Humbug!
  • is that neccessarily a good thing? -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per clear consensus in the CfD. Even if it were a closer margin of !voting, it appears to be a pretty evident case of overcategorization. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Especially "genderless" category. It's probably entirely based on assumptions or what was not clearly revealed in the English series/games. Tellerman 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually gender was an important aspect incorporated ever since Pokemon Silver and Gold and the introduction of breeding. if your argument is that the category can only be populated using speculation and OR you should rescind your endorsal. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse This Wikiproject should stop claiming ownership of pages. There was a CLEAR consensus. FunPika 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reason for this DRV is because it was more like a vote rather than discussion, not a single person added more to the discussion than "overcategorization" or denounced the opposers viewpoints. there was no discussion and therefore no consensus. and btw, you're the only person to mention the wikiproject... -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closing admin. 4-1, as mentioned above, is pretty clear. --Kbdank71 13:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • because we're voting now huh? -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse per Tellerman, Arkyan and Spartaz. JoshuaZ 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this isn't the pokemon wiki. I also fixed the header of the DRV. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ty for fixing that, didn't remember there was a template for that. well this isn't the slave dictionary, so i guess we should treat that subject as superficially as possible too? u and all the other people who use the arguement "X not Pokemon Y" need to take a look at wikipedia's five pillars especially the first one. "Wikipedia... incorporat[es] elements of ... specialized encyclopedias...." see my above arguements for further discussion. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as original nominator. It seemed like consensus was clear that categories aren't to be organized by minor game mechanics. And PokeZap, we heard you the first time. No need to continue to drive home the same point.--Mike Selinker 03:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i wouldn't need to drive home the same point if people didn't keep merely restating their opinion rather than countering my arguements. it's like you say, "A" and I say, "well what about B?" and you just say, "A" again, what am i supposed to do? in the CFD it would have at least had the appearance of a discussion if you responded to the people who refuted your claim. I'm not arguing that trivial mechanics shouldn't be categorized (i'd nominate Category:Shiny Pokemon by color any day). The thing is that you said gender was trivial, some people came on explaining why it wasn't, and you ignored them. everyone else just parroted eachother resulting in a vote that's been interpreted as consensus. two people even in this discussion have used the arguement "4-1 means consensus". -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Nom seems to be under the misapprehension that "over-categorization" is merely an epithet, rather than recognizing it as a widely accepted guideline (WP:OC), and therefore recognizing that the people who cited it were offering arguments and reasoning. (If it isn't a trivial intersection, it is at least, definitely a narrow one.) Arguments to keep, on the other hand, seemed to be based on the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a game guide. It is not. Xtifr _tälk 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i appreciate your link to WP:OC, i'd like to point out that in the original CFD the only reference to WP:OC was "no sex/gender" which isn't actually on there (closest thing is "Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference" which allows for categories if a head article could be written). you cite Trivial intersections, and Narrow intersections. besides what was posted before, i'd also like to add that genderless pokemon are specially affected when it comes to breeding because they cannot breed with others of their species, but must breed with a Ditto. and gender in general has even been extended into causing visual differences between sexes of the same species as of Diamond and Pearl, so gender is not some small mechanic of the game, irrelevant to comprehensive understanding. As far as "Narrow" goes, WP:OC states, "If an article is in 'category A' and 'category B', it does not follow that a 'category A and B' has to be created for this article." This isn't what's going on here, there never was a Category:Males or even Category:Fictional males. "Narrow" would be creating Category:Female-only Bug-type Pokemon. so if you want to cite WP:OC you're going to need a different reason. And there is no misunderstanding about game-guide material, except perhaps that if people are ignorant about a topic related to games that they immediately call it cruft or a violation of WP:NOT. the concept of gender-specific pokemon is not instructional nor superfluous. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 15:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OC leads one to Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which states in relevant part "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered. A gender-specific category should only be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic. For example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Which Pokemon are boys and which are girls is not a topic of special encyclopedic interest. Otto4711 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• alright, but looking at that, all the examples are for people. and indeed, whether an author is male or female rarely has any impact on their importance. however, the fact that a certain pokemon can only ever be male or female (or genderless) is an important factor in the game on par with type, thereby having a specific relation to the topic which is at the core of the statement, the topic of encyclopedic interest was in reference to the example. I'll jump the gun with you, and go right to the most relevant point, a simple statement that, "a gender... subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree." however even this falls a little flat as it's point to to avoid "ghettoizing" people. but pokemon aren't people, they don't have rights and feelings we should respect. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We have certainly deleted sex-based categories for fictional characters in the past for example for female superheroes and supervillains and the like. If the reason that the sex of a Pokemon is important is because their sex determines their role in a game then the category strays into game guide territory, which Wikipedia is not. Otto4711 21:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

This category was closed as delete against a consensus of 30:11 in favor of keeping. The closing admin in his comments retained all of the arguments in favor of deletion (even though they had been contested by several editors) and none of the arguments in favor of keeping. Request DRV on the basis that this was closed in error with no visible consensus to delete and a probable rough consensus to keep Ramdrake 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin

I closed with delete, given the fact that other similar categories have been deleted on the same basis. There is consensus in the community that these type of categories are not useful, are divisive, and do not help the project. Users can add themselves to categories such as Wikipiedians interested in XXXX, that are neutral categories that can help the project. The comments in favor of keeping are addressed by the fact thhat "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can be used for the purpose raised in these arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete. Simple as that. Don't turn this into another xfd, please. --- RockMFR 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural note: Ramdrake, did you also intend to request a review for Category:Wikipedians by religion? Shalom ^Hello 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I mixed up the nomination, as the header for the CfD in question got deleted in the closing. I ended up correcting myself twice, and I apologize for any confusion this may have created.--Ramdrake 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild overturn I read the debate as "no consensus" because I think there were solid arguments on both sides. Shalom ^Hello 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I agree with the closing admin's rationale. --Kbdank71 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record: Strong overturn. There was definitely no consensus to delete the categories, either argument-wise or !vote-wise. Therefore, verdict should have defaulted to either "keep per rough consensus" or "keep per no consensus" (I'm not particular on this point).--Ramdrake 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per closing admin's rationale based on strength of arguments. This basically comes down to the issue that the policy of WP:NOT trumps WP:ILIKEIT. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOT 1)applies only if the categories have no collaborative value, which is strongly contested by several editors in the CfD, and 2)even then, it is doubtful whether WP:NOT applies to user categories, as WP:NOT is specified to apply to mainspace only. So, please don't say again the arguments in favor of keeping the category boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, as this is simply not true.--Ramdrake 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply WP:NOT does not apply only to the main space as it states "Many of the policies listed here apply to your user page as well." Also, these categories are not in the user space, they are in the Category space, for which the more strict article standards apply. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Does WP:NOT apply when editors have pointed out that the user categories are indeed useful to something else than social networking? If that is so, we should stop wasting our time and just delete ALL user categories. Is that what you want to do?--Ramdrake 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • At this risk of going off-topic here, yes, I believe that polemics should be avoided. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse A lot of the keep votes were pretty weak. I partiuclarly liked the " I think that this is a good avenue for encouraging collaboration" - isn't that kind of narrow selection of collaborators that we had the userbox wars over. Deletion arguments were well supported by policy and recent precedent and this just tips it within the closing admin's discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Sorry... but I think we do these by consensus for a reason and we have to swallow the outcome even if we don't like it. --BozMo talk 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The numbers might have been against him but the strength of the rationale wasn't. --Tellerman 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse If wikipedians by politics can't exist, neither should wikipedians by religion.--Sefringle^Talk 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note that Wikipedians by political ideology is also currently under DRV and besides, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good argument in this.--Ramdrake 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion — Admins have to make tough calls some times and this was definitely one of them, but the demonstrable harm to the encyclopedia of this category was not trumped by any of the "but I like it" keep "rationales". --Cyde Weys 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse May do no harm but does no real good either. I'm against all forms of categories used only on userpages. We're editors, not bloggers. --Tellerman

Overturn closing admin's rationale makes no sense. "other similar categories deleted on same basis" has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. This was a discussion for these categories and an overwhelming consensus to keep. You can't cite other consensus to override this consensus. -N 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As a matter of procedure: the closing admin cites material which was not in the vote and discussion -- the so-called "similar" deletions -- and therefore not voted on and not discussed in this particular CFD. Similar deletions, if they apply, should be cited and simply become part of the open discussion and vote. In fact, the admin didn't contribute these "similar deletions" to the discussion. What's being suggested here is if an admin doesn't agree with the outcome of the vote and discussion, a "similar" deletions faux precedent can be applied in a totally arbitrary manner. How could this be "closed with delete" without reference to the vote and discussion which had just taken place? This wasn't a vote on the deletion of all editor self-identification categories, but a specific set of categories on which a specific discussion and vote took place. Let the vote and discussion of the deletion of all editor self-identification categories happen elsewhere if that's what this admin wants purged from the Wikipedia. patsw 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/remove from userboxes. There is obviously no consensus to delete outright. The idea that I think is the best and a most reasonable compromise based on the given arguments was the suggestion to simply remove these categories from userboxes. There is an encyclopedic use for them - finding people to write articles. If someone cares enough to add themselves to the category manually, chances are they are interested in helping to write an article. Getting them out of userboxes answers just about every objection other than the "religion=bad" objections, which, well, aren't very helpful. Banning userbox categories for anything other than babel boxes would actually solve a lot of life's woes - they serve no function other than to be annoying. When people add 50 userboxes to their userpage and that puts them in 50 categories, that doesn't do a thing in this world to help you find an editor on a topic of interest. But when you have to manually add your category, then user categories are actually helpful. --BigDT 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I just read WP:NOT, and I don't see why a few people at a small debate on a single issue should be able to ignore policy. I think it is great that whoever is in charge here can just go ahead and follow the rules despite the vote. Until(1 == 2) 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To establish a consensus you have to cite something specific in WP:NOT that applies to this specific UCFD. It is unpersuasive the wave your hands over WP:NOT and declare it applies to this specific UCFD but not also to all of the other editor self-identification categories. patsw 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild overturn - were half of the votes ILIKEITs, it'd still be a no consensus. I also have faith in the categories in that, unlike "Category:German Wikipedians who like to wear shower caps backwards on alternate Thursdays in months beginning with J", there is a chance for people to collaborate using these categories. A chance, mind, not a guarantee, but it does bond editors with a common encyclopedic interest together. While I know that most of this is more of a deletion debate keep, but it's still a valid point. Will ^(talk) 02:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear overturn at the least that was no consensus - I would have closed it as keep. There are several !ilikeit style votes, but this is user categories we are talking about, Ilikeit basically amounts to "I think it is useful" or "I dont think we are causing any harm" there were also several idontlikeit votes which amount to the opposite. in addition to that there was several Othercrapwasdeletedsothishsouldbetoo delete votes which are possibly the least useful of the lot as that its NOT the way wikipedia works. The results of a previous XfD on a similar subject do not nullify a newer one. That said, I don't think jossi made this call in bad faith, I just wish admins would stop imposing their will on closures - if you want to have a say, make an argument then damn well do it IN the debate itself. Viridae^Talk 02:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never close AfDs or CfDs in which I participate in the discussion. That gives me the chance to review the comments and assess them on their merits. "Wikipedians interested in XXX" can fulfill the role that the "keep" comments want, so their concerns have been addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting you close it if you participate in it. I was suggesting that if you had an opinion you should participate, rather than force it on the community by way of your close. Viridae^Talk 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I did enforce is the overall view of the community as I assessed it to be, and not just the !votes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have intended that and just been misreading a consensus. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Wikipedians by political ideology.--T. Anthony 22:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS do not trump policy.Proabivouac 03:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. While the MfD might not have consensus to delete, community consensus has been to delete user categories that are not directly related to one's editing of Wikipedia. As the closing admin pointed out, there are "interested in" categories that supplant this one and are far less divisive. This is a sticky issue, but I believe the closing admin followed proper process by dealing with the broader community consensus on policy, rather than the narrow consensus at the deletion debate. -- Kesh 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said it yourself, there was NO consensus to delete. It might be pointed out that consensus can change, and that is why we hold seperate xfds for seperate articles, cats etc (even if they are related in style) - otherwise, you are essentially suggesting that when one set of categories, articles gets deleted then everything related or similar should go with it - that is not the case and that should never be the case. Viridae^Talk 05:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A clear statement has been made that divisive userboxes and (IIRC) user categories are to be deleted from Wikipedia. This overrides XfD consensus. -- Kesh 05:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How exactly is this divisive? I support the removal of disruptive categories, userboxes etc but these are hardly that. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - We should focus on writing articles, not on navel gazing, and this one invites discord and strife. Zero value to the project. Crum375 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. We give our admins certain discretion because we trust their judgement. Discretion was appropriately used here, in keeping with policy. An utterly needless and potentially damaging category. Marskell 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or maybe relist. As I voted "keep" maybe I shouldn't speak, but I can accept a consensus that goes against me. I just don't quite see the consensus here. Discounting every one-line statement about keep, and ones simply saying "I like it", there doesn't seem to be a consensus for delete. Deletion seems to be partly based on "other stuff was deleted", granted there might be no article for that idea, which I'm not sure is considered a valid reason. Although if we remove all "identity" categories then this would have to go.--T. Anthony 06:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's see. Are these categories in any way useful for building an encyclopedia? Probably not. Are they in any way harmful? No, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. Is any of the content on most Wikipedians' pages useful for building an encyclopedia? Likewise, no. Unless we are willing to remove all personal content from user pages, undelete. (Not to mention that deletion was against a clear consensus to keep.) - Mike Rosoft 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Seems to have been properly closed. Admins are trusted to use discretion based on what's best for the project. ElinorD (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The only compelling arguments were on the "delete" side. The closer did an excellent job. Sean William ‹‹‹ 12:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Cyde and ElinorD, and particularly per all who reminded those here that Xfd is not a vote. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn per Anthongy. While the Puppy is correct that XfD is not a vote, 30/11 is a bit extreme and there were decent arguments in favor of keeping so it isn't like these were ILIKEIT keeps. JoshuaZ 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn. Here we go again: as with the political categories, this debate was closed without achieving anything remotely resembling a consensus to delete. Having taken an intermediate/compromise position in the discussion, I am appalled that Jossi's closing comments interpret "users can categorise themselves as Wikipedians interested in XXX" as endorsement or support for deletion. Those of us who argued in favour of "Interested in XXX" categories made clear that this was a proposal to rename the existing cats, not to delete them. There seems to be a misapprehension in the closing comments that "Interested in..." categories already exist for users to transfer themselves to. As far as I have ascertained, they generally don't. For a given religion, both "interested" and "identifier" userboxes will nearly always put you into the identifier category. Currently, only 3 interested cats exist (for Buddhists, Jews and Sikhs). As an enormous set of them will have to be created to replace the existing identifier cats, it makes sense to keep the latter and rename. This is an unfinished discussion, arbitrarily cut short. It seems to me that some people are treating deletion debates as a formality which can be ignored if the community doesn't reach the "right" conclusion. That's divisive and undermines the assumption of good faith. Gnostrat 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: sofixit. Nobody is stopping anyone from creating these "Wikipedians interested in" categories. If you did not know it, note the wiki software does not allow the renaming of categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: When a verdict of rename is reached at UCfD, usually the closing admins recommends such and care is taken to create the new, renamed categories to replace the old one, including transcluding the users therein; here, a straight deletion was recommended, and such was carried out summarily, before even the end of the DRV. What's more, this is a supercategory containing about 150 individual categories, and thousands of individual users. If Jossi suggests that he really had in mind that the categories should be renamed, he should take up the task of renaming and transcluding all relevant subcats and users, (which is an admin task), and not suggest a mere editor do it.--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can transclude categories. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as we're also speaking about around 150 cats encompassing several thousand users, I'm wondering if a mere UCFD delete is enough to settle the matter, or if it shouldn't have been brought to the Village Pump from the start?--Ramdrake 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Once again, we have an editor who has never been to UCFD unilaterally ignoring the wishes of the people registering their opinion there. This has to stop.--Mike Selinker 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not understand what an xfD is and what does it means to close it. Closing admins take into consideration not only !votes of the few people that commented, but the arguments presented, and overall established understanding of what user categories are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes of the "few people who commented" was 30:11 in favor of keeping. Strong arguments were made in favor of keeping, which if repelled would set a precedent by which all user categories must cease to exist. How could the closing admin dismiss such a consensus and such arguments without even mentioning them in his closing?--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed hundreds of discussions at CFD and UCFD, thanks. You, on the other hand, have commented exactly once at CFD and once at UCFD in 2007, before closing this debate. So I'd prefer it if you didn't lecture me about what you presume I don't know.--Mike Selinker 04:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may not have closed CfDs, but have closed many xfDs. Your comment unilaterally ignoring the wishes of the people registering their opinion means that you have not understood the rationale for closing the way I did. People commenting in xfDs sometime does not represent established understanding and community consensus. In these cases a responsible sysop will do what I did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the people here understood the closing admin's rationale alright (at least most of them); they just don't agree with it.--Ramdrake 10:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We do not !vote in xfDs or DRVs. We comment and bring forth our arguments to be evaluated on their merit. Counting !votes tripped you before, and is tripping you now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but I believe Wikipedia works by consensus. I would take a 30:11 expression of preference, without any indication of IPanon vote-stacking, or SPA activity, and no overarching reason to go against consensus (such as a copyright violation) as a pretty good consensus to keep. I'm not looking for an explanation to disregard the vote; I'm looking for an explanation to disregard the consensus.--Ramdrake 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said that I took the keep comments into account in my closing, and I believe the expression of preference for keep can be bridged by the "Wikipedians interested in" categories. So, I still believe that the closing was expressing consensus, and not dismissing it. Now, we should let the DRV continue without additional back and forth between us. I guess that we can only agree to disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Community supports these categorizations despite a few editors zealously interested in their removal. Owen 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Policy and common sense trumps WP:ILIKEIT. Close was clearly in the interests of the project. And salt them too, so that this crap doesn't come back. MER-C 09:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion -- voting is evil, and admins are empowered to ignore non-compelling arguments. Liking a category is not compelling. --Haemo 09:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Policy and common sense also trump WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is what MER-C's comment amounts to, and the same goes for a number of the Delete arguments in the CfD (as well as vacuous comments here like "zero value", "closing admin made the right call" and the like). The Keep arguments weren't all about "liking a category", this has already been adequately answered on more than enough occasions. Perhaps we could focus on the procedural issue, which is whether the CfD was improperly closed. Since WP:CDP places on closing admins the requirement of ensuring there is rough consensus for a Delete, which self-evidently there was not, then we default to Keep. Admins are entrusted with discretion, but this should "respect the judgment and feelings of...participants", see WP:DGFA. Only basic non-negotiable policy considerations justify overriding editor opinion and I can find no such policies that apply here. Gnostrat 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I just noticed the closing admin for the original UCfD went and deleted the category while the DRV is still running (and should be left running for at least another 3 days, according to the 5-day guideline). Is this normal?--Ramdrake 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been odd for that not to have happened. He closed the debate as delete and deleted them. You contested the decision and brought it here. It won't be undeleted unless consensus here demands that. So the article deleted, as it is, is the default; there is no reason to undelete it before this discussion ends. Dmcdevit·t 10:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Overturn-It was very obviously a "keep", beyond any possible re-interpretation. Calling it otherwise, simply because he felt other categories have been previously deleted for similar reasons, in inexcusable. When clear and overwhelming consensus says to keep (or even "no consensus if one wants to take ludicrous liberties), then it is never excusable to pretend it's a delete, just because one personally disagrees with consensus. If you don't like the results, file another ucfd. Bladestorm 16:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It must be the summer sun (or for those in the southern hemisphere, the winter cool). There is just no way this could be closed as delete. Indeed, XfD is not a vote, but that's not a license to usurp an overwhelming consensus based on one's personal opinion. If you want to contribute your opinion, do so by commenting in the XfD debate. Admins are supposed to analyze consensus here, with some leeway to ignore far-out opinions, not force their personal opinion on the masses by claiming the delete votes (like "Let's get rid of this poisonous trash" and "consistency and fairness"?) were more compelling. I'm sure you meant well jossi, but closures like these give the impression that this deletion was unavoidable, that the category was just going to be deleted anyway and the five days of discussion was a waste of time. Frankly, that's an insult to the community (even if it was not intentional). -- tariqabjotu 16:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If 50 people said "Lets keep a copyright violation", and 1 person said "No, that would be illegal", should "consensus" win? I would like to see the page that actually defines this strange usage of "consensus", so I can better understand the propriety of this closing. I think I am close to understanding it from seeing examples of it in use, but I am still a little confused. I hope it means that mob rule can be overruled when they use faulty rational. Until(1 == 2) 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That could happen, if there was a clear violation of a non-negotiable policy, such as a copyright violation. There is no copyvio here, and no demonstrable, indisputable breach of a non-negotiable policy, and no demonstrated SPA or anon vote-stacking activity. Therefore, consensus should win. For a better definition of what should have happened, please refer to the category deletion policy.--Ramdrake 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was using copyright as an example. But where does it tell me what "consensus" means here, because you folks are not using the dictionary for that word. Until(1 == 2) 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your question, please look up here and here.--Ramdrake 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohhh a flowchart! I am in heaven! Until(1 == 2) 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion In the future, such categories must be speedied as clear violations of policy. Beit Or 20:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the only violation which might apply (although it has been strongly disputed here and in the original UCFD) is WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. If we find a violation here, despite the manifest use of these categories for encyclopaedia-building, then all user categories are in violation, as they can all be used for social networking.--Ramdrake 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I see no clear consensus to delete (and bear in mind "keep" is the default outcome). Reasonable arguments were presented on both sides, and the closing admin's interpretation was not necessarily reflected in the community's discussion. Hut 8.5 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn the entire UCFD process is out of control and doesn't reflect community concensus SchmuckyTheCat
• Overturn How can you argue that there is a clear consensus to delete. --MichaelLinnear 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blessthefall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)Article was deleted and recreated four times according to the protected articles page for May 2007. I never saw the page when it was around, but the band is clearly notable; see Their Allmusic writeup and Arizona Star article noting nationwide Warped Tour appearance. I am willing to write the article and establish notability if it is unprotected. Chubbles 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This was rather promotional in tone, and would have needed rewriting and better sourcing to survive an AfD. But it was deleted under A7 ("no assertion of significance or importance") while the article as last deleted included "blessthefall's debut album, His Last Walk, surfaced in April 2007". This might or might not be enough to pass WP:MUSIC, but IMO releasing any album at all (assuming this was a true release, not an Internet-only release, which i think it was, since a real label is mentioned) is enough of a "claim of notability" to avoid an A7 delete. I would overturn and list on AfD. But in any case, this should be unsalted as there is a good faith statement of intent to write a proper article on this group, which if possible should not be blocked merely because someone wrote a poor article in the past. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a follow-up: that is indeed a true release, on Record Collection, which is a major-label subsidiary. Chubbles 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt The last version isn't worth undeleting. Support unsalting and recreation with sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not proposing undeletion, but current contributors to the article seem to not have correctly understood the procedure for review. Coren 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am proposing undeletion. On a word per word basis, I noticed you had the most to day about deleting the article. Plus you were quite clearly flaming one of the contributors to the AfD page.130.194.13.101 15:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Article should not be deleted. It's relevant, if a little obscure. I also noticed it has been updated to show it's notability, which was one of Coren's main complaints about it. Although, since Coren hates to lose an argument, I'm sure he'll find something else to complain about.Manic4wiki 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article was only placed on Deletion Review after I was told by an administrator that was the only way to argue against her closing of the original argument (which her decision was to merge, not delete). Please reopen this discussion. Cazza411 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closing admin used WP:SNOW with two "votes" for this; eight similar Afd's also closed with SNOW after very little input or time elapsed. John Vandenberg 13:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW was not used as the main reason, it was used as a second incidental reason. I believe, I gave my reasoning for closing in all. IMO, the articles didnt stand a chance. Anyways, feel free to overturn and relist for discussion. --soum ^talk 13:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N is a guideline, and requires concensus for deletion, and five days is the time allocated to allow people to respond. Closing it after 12 hours is relying entirely on SNOW to do the close. All nine closes should be undone immediately to allow them to continue. John Vandenberg 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overthrow and return to AfD. I understand soum's comment as agreeing to this, so i suggest Speedy.DGG 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was surprised at how quickly they were closed, but given the total lack of sources (most rely on myspace) I figured that WP:SNOW was as good a reason as any, I don't see the article being improved in the next four days. Darrenhusted 13:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update, a speedy keep by the same admin has been reverted so the Afd continues. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamie Sheffield. The admin has a notice on the user page that they will be offline for the next two days. John Vandenberg 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closing editor speedied 9 AFDs after 4 to 11 hours and with 2 to 4 delete !votes, then posted that he would be offline a couple of days. If so, it would have been better to let someone else close the debates so they could respond to questions about it, or to take a look at them after the 2 days off. WP:SNOW is not appropriate when, in some time zones, people were asleep and really had no opportunity to comment. Not enough time, and not enough persons participating, to justify a premature closing of debate and deletion of the subject. The AFDs which should be restored and relisted are: Tony Rumble (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes), Glen Osbourne (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Steve Madison (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) Ron Hutchinson (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Jake Milliman (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Rick Fuller (deleted after 12 hours and 3 Delete !votes) , Chet Jablonski (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes) , Steve Bradley (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes) , and Destine (deleted after 4 hours and 2 Delete !votes). I see no benefit in deleting articles as soon as they are listed, thereby substituting the judgement of 2 to 4 editors for the many who check the listings each day. This is not to say they are great articles at all. Edison 15:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the closing admin has already reversed this set of deletions and re-opened the AfD discussions for each of them. This DRV can now be closed as no longer necessary. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didar Singh Bains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 (No claim of significance or importance). It seems to me that such statements in the article as "one of the richest Sikh farmers in North America" "a leading figure in the Sikh community for the last 20 years". "president of the World Sikh organization" and "founder chairman of the World Kabbadi federation" do constitute an assertion of significance. Obviously better sroucing would be needed for this to survive an AfD, but I think these claims ought to be enough to avoid an A7 speedy. The deleting admin has been asked to reconsider, but has not responsed, although he responded to two later requests to reconsider speedy deletions with "Please see WP:DRV." DES ^(talk) 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a copyvio. —Cryptic 05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it seems. Obviously a copyvio should not be undelted, nomination threfore withdrawn. However, i can only assume that the deleting admin didn't know it was a copyvio -- at any rate it wasn't so indicated in the deletion log. I maintain that had this not been a copyvio, it was not a proper A7 deletion. DES ^(talk) 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with the comment "Biographical article that does not assert significance" four times by the same admin. The admin was asked on his talk page to restore, and has not responded. The article says "Moore co-wrote the true-crime novel Deadly Medicine with ex-husband Dan Reed in the early 80s. The 295-page work went on to become a New York Times best-seller for seven weeks in 1988, and also a NBC TV movie-of-the-week." That is a very celar claim ot notability. I don't see how anyone can think this is an A7 speedy delete. On that basis alone I would be incined to a keep at an AfD, assuminmg that this claim was sourced. But even if some editors might reasonably opt for deletion at an afd, this isn't the kind of "clear-cut" case that speedy deletion is intended for. Overturn deletion. DES ^(talk) 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not undelete this, as the article was clearly promotional in tone, but it may well be possible to write an article on the book (whicih has received significant non-trivial coverage) and a redirect to there would be unproblematic. There seems to be no claim to notability other than the single book. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't know if other claims to notability would arise as the article develops, or in an AfD, but IMO being the author of even a single book on the NYT bestseller list is enough of a claim to notability to avoid a speedy, and quite probably enough to avoid deletion at an AfD. If the article was somewhat promotional in tone (I would not call it "blatant spam") then it could be rewritten to accord with WP:NPOV easily enough. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is an artificial construct. What matters is the sources, and whether the sources are predominantly about the book or the author. If they are about the book (and those cited were) then the article should be about the book. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a judgement call -- it can be discussed on the talk page of the restored article, or in an AfD. The article could be moved and rewritten to be about the book, or sources more directly about the author might be found. In any case, that is not the kind of decision that ought to be made by one or two editors, but by a more general consensus. DES ^(talk) 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as an invalid speedy We should follow process. (anyway, promotional tone is not an accepted reason for speedy.) The book was on the best seller's list, so writing it is unquestionably an assertion of significance (whether or not it may be sufficient) and does not qualify for Speedy. Doing it wong 4 times does not make it right. DGG 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Promotional in tone" was being kind. It was written as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete - claim to notability is established; while there might be other reasons to delete it, this should had been AfD. Though a minor writer, the notability still exists. --Thespian 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete I don't think this was blatant advertising... any more than any article about a published writer is inherently advertising. Yes some people might read the description and decide to read the author's work, but this article was just giving encyclopedic information and it did give a claim of notability. We really shouldn't speedy delete stuff like this. Replace this Amazon link with a "find in a library" link perhaps. --W.marsh 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete then AfD it. It isn't quite clear cut enough for a speedy. --BozMo talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - It's only 2 paragraphs, the first is clearly biographical, the 2nd is clearly promotional. Easily fixed with an edit rather than a deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list on AfD. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/undelete per W.Marsh and no reason to AfD since the author of a NYT bestseller is clearly notable. Akradecki is correct about the need to remove the second paragraph in question. JoshuaZ 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list: co-writing a clearly-notable book is an assertion of notability, so this is not A7 fodder. It does not, however, demonstrate notability, since notability is not contagious, and it is quite possible that an author (and even more, a co-author) is not notable, despite one notable work. (I'm co-author, along with thousands of other people, of some very notable software projects, but that doesn't make me notable.) What we have here is questionable-but-possible notability, so AfD is the right way to resolve this. Xtifr _tälk 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Needs clean-up (even "needs extensive clean-up" or "needs total overhaul") are not valid reasons to delete an article about a best-selling author, let alone speedy. Undelete this article; then improve it. --JayHenry 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rewriting the entire article based on other existing articles

Spyware Terminator's page was deleted for reasons of "blatant advertising". Upon comparing what was on the page previously, the information contained was no different from the information contained in Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spysweeper, or Windows Defender. I also rewrote the page following the layout and information of Ad-Aware and that was also deleted.

I do not mind rewriting the page from scratch, and working with people to make it look less like an advertisement, assuming it ever did look one. Cableguytk 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The last version of the article, in full, was: Spyware Terminator is a freeware software program from Crawler,LLC used to help remove various kinds of Spyware and Malware from Windows based computers. Spyware Terminator incorporates realtime protection, basic HIPS protection, and Clam AV integration to help protect computers from these threats. This was tagged with db-spam, but this is not sapm, it is no more spammy than most stub-class articels on software. The deletion log said "tagged as spam, deleted as nn software/freeware." But "non-notable software" is not a speedy deletetion reason, nor does WP:CSD#A7 apply to software of any sort, nor should it iMO. Overturn and list on AfD to determine by consensus discussion if this should be included or not. It may not be notable, but I can't tell, and that is not a judgement properly made by one admin. Yes admins are trusted, but one pair of eye is simply not enough.DES ^(talk) 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments below. DES ^(talk) 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Already afd'd here. Nomination amounts to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Endorse and keep salted. —Cryptic 04:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry but I am not clear on where this discussion started or what. That AFD says I cant modify it, so what am I supposed to do? I was not aware of this AFD nomination previously. So I would like to start a 3rd nomination so that I may voice my opinion. Cableguytk 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see. Since this had previously been deleted via an AfD deletion discussion (twice in fact) it would have been helpful had the speedy reason been given as G4 (recreation of deleted content) with a link to the prior AfD (or in this case, AfDs). The AfDs cited two primary reasons for deletion: lack of notability, and advertising. IMO the latest version had already dealt with the advertising issue. If any editor wants there to be an article on this procuct, that editor should, IMO, 1) create a draft that clearly establishes notability by including references to non-trivial mentions in multiple independant reliable sources. 2) When and if such a draft is complete, bring it here for review. if it establishes notability, then and only then the article should be unsalted and the new version moved into article space. DES ^(talk) 05:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Info: Distinguish page Spyware Terminator from page Spyware terminator. Anthony Appleyard 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have made a draft and published it several times but it keeps being deleted. I believe it addresses the advertisement-look and the lack of resources.

Here is my draft which was so nicely deleted:

• The text of the article can now be found at User:Cableguytk Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This layout: 1) does not appear to be advertising to me 2) follows a mesh of the layouts at Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Windows Defender (mostly focusing on Spybot) 3) has a good amount of sources. Unfortunately due to the age of this product (around 1.5yrs), the lack of a hosuehold name like "Ad-Aware", and continuous negative campaigns against the product, including here on Wikipedia, not many other sources are available outside of the ones provided.

Please review the entry and let me know your opinions. Cableguytk 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've g4d this again and salted the properly-capitalized title as well. The new and improved independent reliable sources cited in this version were spywareterminator.com-domain links (11 of them!), a single reprinted press release, and links to download sites, just like those that were in the version deleted at afd. How many times do we go through this before folks stop assuming good faith? —Cryptic 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As I said, the program is ONLY 1.5 years old. Combine that with the fact that it is not a household name, it is mistaken for many bad products (Spyware-Terminator 4.0), it was briefly listed on SpywareWarrior.com, and it is developed by a company which had PREVIOUS ties with an adware company which eventually changed its business practices. There is NOT much for me to work with here. How many different download sites can I link before it becomes too redundant? This isn't Ad-Aware or SpyBot where the product has been around for 10 years for people to test and award it. Cableguytk 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you provide multiple independant third party coverage to allow us to establish notabiliuty and verify information. Stress on the words multiple and independant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is really "NOT much ... to work with here" that rather sugests a lack of notability. Please understand that the question isn't whether this software in some sense "deserves" an article because it is good software, or because it has had bad breaks. Nor is wikipedia a place to publicze unknown software. We have articles only about notable subjects, and that generally means a significant amount of attention has been paid to the subject by someone other than its creator, If there has not been such attention, the article will have to wait until there is. If there has been, then an article needs to document it. DES ^(talk) 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "11" links to the Spyware Terminator domain were to cover me should anyone claim that any of it was independent research, since Im always beig flagged for this kind of stuff. I linked to Download.com (which Ad-Aware does), I linked to a couple domains which have awarded the program (Softpedia.com, and Xmaesto.com), and I linked a press release which was about Spyware Terminator's associated former parent company changes in business practices. Other than that, there really isnt much out there worth linking, unless you want me to link up to the plethora of download sites similar to Download.com and Softpedia.com that have reviewed and listed the program. In all, I have links to 4 different independent sources (websearch.com, softpedia, xmaesto, and download.com) By comparison:

• Ad-Aware - 2 different independent links (2 links to google, 1 to download.com)
• SpyBot - 0 different independent links
• Windows Defender - 3 different independent link
• Spyware Doctor - 5 different independent sources

Cableguytk 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:INN, if you find articles which don't meet wikipedia requirements like verifiability please consider (a) fixing them or (b) nominating them for deletion if unfixable, but whatever you do don't see it as a green light for creating more of the same. --pgk 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion of those articles is not my objective, nor should it be. The only reason why the Spyware Terminator article is deleted and not those articles is because there are more people out there who want to run negative campaigns against the software, and less who want to for those listed programs. So there is more likely to be a person on Wikipedia who wants to do whatever they can to take down Spyware Terminator. Im sorry, but Im not going to flag those articles for being bad...I see them as being legitimate articles worthy of being listed, and if the admins see otherwise, let them handle it. My objective is to get the Spyware Terminator article relisted, and if the admins do not see a problem with those articles listed above UNLESS a user raises issue, then the Spyware Terminator article should not be discriminated against. Cableguytk 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins are volunteers, admins do not spend all their time looking at every article and vetting it, so yes unless someone flags an issue with an article it may go unnoticed for a long time. That's the way it works. Admins are also not obliged to bring every article up to scratch just because someone points it out to them. Sorry you see this as some sort of grand conspiracy, it isn't and declaring it as such is unlikely to garner any sympathy. As for discrimination, yep wikipedia discriminates against all sorts of content based on our basic standards of verifiability, no original research etc. etc. If you want somewhere which is merely a "fair" free for all where any crap goes, wikipedia is not the place there are plenty of free web hosts out there. --pgk 08:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious endorse deletion. Article was canonical spam, author is pretty obviously promoting his own interests here. Nothing to see, move along please. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - As I read the draft article, I got the distinct feeling I was reading the software's box, complete with the systems requirements label. Sorry, but not only was the article not encyclopedic, there was nothing in the article that convinced me that this particular program was notable enough to be listed in an encyclopedia. (And just for the record, between the two versions of the title, this article has been deleted a total of 9 times...enough already!) AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• JzG: so you would rather me go around and nominate for deletion every article like Ad-Aware, SpyBot...anyone that I found to be a junky article, thus causing the future removal of articles which no one maintains, yet there is no desire to list an article which may be bad in some peoples eyes but has a good following of people who are willing to maintain it to make it look good? I just dont see how this helps Wikipedia.
  

Akradecki:Why dont you go check Ad-Aware or Spybot or Windows Defender while you are at it and tell me what you think of those articles?
Seeing as how the admins dont mind reading those other articles during this deletion review for comparison, why arent those up for deletion? Oh right, because no non-admin has voted them for deletion review.
As I have been indicating, just put the article back up and, as you see that I am willing to maintain the article, i will clean it up to the point where it doesnt look like ad advertisement. There is not much that can be done with the artcile if it is not available to me or anyone else. Oh yeah, I can attempt to edit it offline, but the incremental update history which Wikipedia provides helps admins see where changes have been made and where suggestions can be made.
If the Ad-Aware and Spybot articles were to get deletion review tags for spam/advertisements, editors would be able to edit the articles to make those changes before the article was to be deleted. That is how it worked with Softpedia and WIP (AM), both of which I am/was an active editor with. People had a problem, i edited the articles and resolved the problem. Cableguytk 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion fails to meet our standards, nominators insistance that it should be here because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS whilst not willing to nominate that other stuff for deletion suggests they just want to use wikipedia as a free webhost, something it is not --pgk 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spyware Terminator already has its own webhost (spywareterminator.com), there is no point to having wikipedia be a webhost. The intention here is to have an article which gives the user a one page rundown of the product without having to 1) download the product, 2) install the product, or 3) run the product. It is to inform the user of the product, its intent and a short history. I am not willing to nominate any of those articles for deletion because I personally dont feel like they need deletion. For simple windows software the layout of these pages, including Spyware Terminator's previously deleted one, is sufficient to inform the user of the program and its intents. Let me put it this way, if today was September 11, 2001 @9AM and you wanted to make an article, the article would be 100% made from original research. You saw the event, no papers have written anything yet, and all that exists is your word and the next guy's. Obviously this article is a major historical event that needs to be in Wikipedia, but you are going to tell me that it requires deletion because there are no sources available, or the article does not become valid until you find some independent sources like the NYTimes/CNN/etc. to write a story about it? And when someone complains that it was deleted because there are no published sources for 9/11 at 9AM, and the reply that entries for biblical events like Noah's Ark have no published resources and you going to say that this falls into the category os WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? I doubt that. Every piece of history in the history books, even the BIBLE, has had some form of original research or content. Information about the most generic parts of an event dont require citations or the sort - 9/11 = 2 planes hit the WTC, 1 plane downed in PA, 1 plane into the pentagon - it is not until you start going into detail with claims that you need that kind of citation. In sum, every article has a good portion which is and requires original research, things that dont need citations to say that it happened or existed. If the Spyware Terminator article is made to be a stub which says "Spyware Terminator is a freeware application which removes and protects from spyware. It was developed by Crawler, blah blah" that is fine. In time, there will be some notable sources which will publish verifiable information. In 9/11's case it didnt take much more than an hour...in Spyware Terminator's case it might take a few weeks, but it certainly is no grounds for deleting the article. Cableguytk 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - do you realize that by saying "The intention here is to have an article which gives the user a one page rundown of the product without having to 1) download the product, 2) install the product, or 3) run the product. It is to inform the user of the product, its intent and a short history", you are essentially admitting that you are spamming? Your point is to provide information to the users/customers of this product, the very definition of spam. We are not a place to promote a product to potential users! I don't know how much clearer we can make this basic concept. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in my book. All the "spam" i receive insists I download or try the stuff Im informed about. Besides, what do you think the Ad-Aware, SpyBot, etc. articles are doing? In theory I could consider information about every article in here as spam if you define it that way. The sports articles introduce themselves, tell you where it can be found on TV, what is so great about the program, etc. That is not spam in your book? [McDonalds] article describes the store, its history, and its products. That is not spam in your book? It seems the only difference you make between a product article which is spam and which isnt spam is notable sources, but from my discussion above, sources dont make something notable or not. Again, in the first hour of 9/11, it is only seen by viewers eyes and the only people writing about it on are unrespected editors of the wikipedia community. It only becomes "notable" once there are articles in CNN or NYTimes apparently... Cableguytk 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, exactly. Notability, as we define it here at Wikipedia (see WP:N), is conferred by the existence of multiple non-trivial secondary sources. What I was referring to by your admission of spamming is the intention of the article: you were aiming it to inform specifically users or potential users of the software. In other words, it's not a general article for a general audience of a documentedly notable subject, it's an article that you specifically wrote to promote the product to a specific audience, the potential users of the product. That's basic marketing, my friend, and Wikipedia simply isn't a venue for marketing. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didnt address what I said, and I dont care about OTHERCRAPEXISTS because this is a valid statement. What about McDonalds, Burger King, NFL, etc. These have nothing to do with software, but it relates directly to it. I can go as far to Windows, and Sports, and television programs. They are all the same thing, product placement. It is all spam the way you define "spam". They are all articles aptly placed on Wikipedia to raise product awareness, that is all they are there for. The difference between Spyware Terminator and these other products is two fold: 1) a decent following of people willing to defend and edit the article (as you can see I am pretty much the only one on the defense team for the Spyware Terminator article here), and 2) a storied history from 10 years up to 100 years long. Cableguytk 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• List at AfD All these articles list no independent RSs, except their forums. they could--some of them have been reviewed. It's been customary to cut corners for software people recognize as notable. The comments about differential treatment are in my opinion justified. To establish the standard of content in WP for a class of articles, comparisons are relevant, consistency is important, othercrapexists is over-used--it's only appropriate when the other stuff is crap. DGG 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete and keep salted, there is differential treatment between other software and this one because Spyware Terminator, unlike some others, is not notable. (Or, at least, notability cannot be established). The whole point of notability guidelines is differential treatment. Coren 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what leads you to believe it is not notable? Because there are no reviews by the industry-standard PC Magazine (which are in progress, mind you)? No content on TV about the product on G4TV? No recurring advertisments in major US magazines? I think you are clouded in your thought that the only notable security applications contains only 5 products (Adaware, spybot, Spysweeper, Windows Defender, CounterSpy). If you go over to Brazil or Czech Republic, you will find many more people who think Spyware Terminator is more notable than the aforementioned products. I guess Spyware Terminator should use some kind of aggressive advertising campaign like the aforementioned products or pay Download.com to be listed on the frontpeage when new updates arrive (like Ad-Aware) to become notable...however that would be seen as spam. Cableguytk 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an even better idea. Why dont you point me in the direction of an article of a software title which you DO accept. Then I can model Spyware Terminator's after that one so we wont have this problem. I can point you in the direction of several articles which exist on Wikipedia for every type of software, security, chat, fun, etc., and most, while accepted by the masses, dont follow guidelines and seem just like a big spam advert. So I want you to find me one you think follows guidelines to a T. Cableguytk 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of the form, of what it is "modeled on". For any topic, software, or pop star or author, or firearm, there needs to be notability. The most usual means of establishing notability is to show that there are reliable sources, independant of the subject or its creator or proprietor, that discuss the subject in a non-trivial way. Note that blogs and fansites are enerally not reliable sources, and the site of the product manufturer may not be considered reliable, and is never independant. If other software articels have reliabel sources and this one doesn't, this one will be delted and the others won't. if other software articles also lack reliable sources, then they too will probably be delted in time, but there is no all-or-nothing rule, we get to things as we get to them. Srop trying to compare with other articles, good or bad, and find some sources that indicate significant notability for this software. If none can be found, thre won't be an article until such sources come into existance. If a PC-mag review is in the works, try again after it has been published, for example. DES ^(talk) 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is does seem to be partially about a question of form as far as other admins seem to make mention of. As other admins have brought up, a version history apparently refers to spam, as does referring to the developer webpage 10+ times (which was done to cover my ass in the event that someone said my content was original research, which it was not), as does informing people what the program does. If I had compare the article to the established Yahoo! Messenger, it includes a version history, it also involves links to Yahoo! pages, and it also is an informative page about what it does, yet no one over there complains. There is obviously some standard for software that is engrained to all admins minds. On a second note, I did find notable sources - Download.com (#1 download site in the world), Softpedia.com (#3 download site in the world), websearch.com (another search engine, just as notable as the next search engine). Apparently there is some hidden standard of sources of what is notable and what is not, because apparently the ones I mentioned are not enough to satisfy. Do all the sites need to ranked in the top 10 of alexa rankings to be notable or something? Moreover, every attempt I made to recreate the article was subsequently deleted without discussion, just the standard G11-XXX spam message with no clarification. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note for the record - If the deletion is upheld, the draft article needs to be removed from the user's page, and put into a sandbox if he wants to keep working on it. Spam on a user's page is still spam. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being on a user subpage isn't really any better than being directly on a user page. What matters is that it's being actively worked on instead of hanging around indefinitely as an article surrogate. —Cryptic 22:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed in principle, but having it on a main user page makes it a much more visible target for someone to tag again for speedy. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There article was put on my page by an admin, not me. Since the admin thought it good to be put there instead, I am maintaining it until it is accepted. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the article was indeed pretty promotional in tone, right down to speculation on the next release and system requirements. There might be an article to be had on this software, there might not, but regardless, that one wasn't it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated above, I can find about 10 other articles that do the same. The admins go out of there way to keep a watchdog on the Spyware Terminator pages and make sure that no one edits them, so I dont see a problem with the admins going out of the way to delete these other pages by themselves. Cableguytk 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Spyware Terminator is flagged as advertising than any individual product on WIKI should be deleted as advertising. As they are tooting their own horn. Either let them stay or delete them all. Categories could just be Spyware elimination programs, Virus elimination programs etc...This way everything sounds impartial. sleepm 26 June 2007
• Endorse Deletion. I trudged through nearly a dozen pages of Google results without finding a single article in a notable source with this product as its primary subject--just loads of download links and a few user reviews. Ad-Aware and Spybot, on the other hand, have been discussed as the primary subject of articles that would satisfy WP:RS. With that said, the arguments in favour of restoring this article seem to amount to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and I don't see any problems with process being suggested here. Heather 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Finding articles is one thing, having them linked on the wikipedia page is another, something which the Ad-aware and Spybot pages fail to do (they both have the same, or fewer, number of sources that my Spyware Terminator article had). If you spoke Czech, Im sure you would find a good number of notable sources since the company is based out of Czech Republic. Cableguytk 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad-Aware and Spybot have been around alot longer than ST has. Is it being penalized for being too new? Either it is truly an Encyclopedia or it isn't. If it is just an Encyclopedia than no "products" should be allowed period. If it is not than it should be allowed. HAS ANY OF THE PEOPLE SHOOTING IT DOWN ACTUALLY TRIED THE PROGRAM? sleepm 26 June 2007
    • • Wikipedia is not a place for promoting or endorsing or advertising any program or service. Therefore, not having an article on a particular program is not "penalizing" it. We don't care about whether a program is represented or not. We care about whether our standards are met. Just because there's an article on another product doesn't mean "they are tooting their own horn." In fact, they better not be...we take a dim view of marketing folks doing that. Yes, it happens, and you have to keep in mind that there are 1.8+million articles here, and only 1,200+ admins, but I think I can speak for just about every admin when I say that if we get wind of such a self-horn-tooting campaign, we take it seriously, and try to get the offender to politely stop, and if not, not only do we remove the spam, but we will block the spammer, if they aren't responsive to respecting our standards. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether those products are tooting their own horn is not my problem (obviously sleepm has a problem with it). My problem is that when I recreated the article, which was subsequently deleted, I followed a guideline which said that when recreating an article make sure to follow the layout of previously established articles. I went to all three articles, Ad-Aware, SpyBot and Windows Defender, and made a layout which was kind of a mesh of all three...I followed the layout, i followed the tone of voice, the number of resources...everything. YET the page was STILL deleted. It shows proof of preferential treatment. The admins are not letting me or anyone else recreate the article to even ATTEMPT to clean it up. As you can obviously see I am more than willing, along with a host of other people to clean the article, make it appealing and conform to standards, yet the admins have some personal vendetta against the progra or the article and wont let that happen. Cableguytk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Endorse deletion. That's pretty much the problem. Your product is newer, and therefore has not had the reliable sources to comment on it. Once it becomes well-known, is written about by those reliable sources, and gets some cachet, then come back. Corvus cornix 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So basically you are telling me that if some major historical event was to happen right now or soon, I couldnt have it added to Wikipedia until a credible resource wrote about it? So if Barry Bonds was to hit 7 homeruns tonight, effectively breaking Hank Aaron's record, I couldnt write about it until a credible resource like CNN, AP, NYTimes, etc. wrote about it even though millions of people know of the event? Or if we had a major nuclear attack on some country, I couldnt write about that until the AP or CNN reports it even though billions of people know about it? Im not sure you realize that most of what Comptons and Brittanica publish is conjecture and based on the experience of a single author or historian. Cableguytk 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yup. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (see WP:NOTNEWS). If you don't like the policies, you're free to go start a discussion about it on the appropriate policy or guideline page. Until they are changed, though, that's the standard. Not liking it, though, is not a reasonable justification for ignoring it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, then I must really be missing something...Main_Page has a whole section devoted to today's news. Cableguytk 02:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you look at the bottom of the news box, it has a link to Wikinews, which is for news, and is where the content of that box comes from. Thus your arguement is invalidated.Improbcat 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • So then what is to say i can't post news of a new release of Spyware Terminator there if a proper press release is provided? Cableguytk 16:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The fact Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTNEWS|Wikipedia is not a newspaper]? As has been pointed out to you before and as I just confirmed by pointing out the flaw in your argument. At this point you are either being intentionally obtuse, or are fundamentally incapable of grasping the basic concepts of what wikipedia is and isn't.

If people tell you what wikipedia's policy on something is, and link to an explanation of said policy, then you need to stop arguing that that isn't the case. It has been shown to be the case, and any further claims to the contrary just appear that either you are not listening, or are trying to confuse the issue by arguing minutia that has already been deemed irrelevant. If you disagree with the policy, this is not the place to argue that. Argue it on the policy page, but the policy is not going to be changed because you said here you don't agree with it. Improbcat 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not refuting wikipedia's policies, Im arguing the point that Spyware Terminator is being held to preferential treatment. Some of the admins keep bringing up policies which I dont refute, but they are being held against the Spyware Terminator article and not against other articles.

Spyware Terminator has resources and it is deleted while SpyBot's article and a couple of my other articles have no sources, but they are left alone?

Spyware Terminator is accused of spamming/etc. yet articles written in the exact same form and language are left alone (SpyBot, Adaware, etc.)?

The resources I used in the Spyware Terminator article as sources were not valid even when they are used in other articles?

The policies instituted by Wikipedia are meant to bring about an all or none mentality. In other words, exceptions are not made. So if that is the case, then why are there still tons of articles which fall into the category of being an exception? In other words, "we make exception for Ad-Aware and SpyBot because, oh no one was DRV'ed it". Or, "we make exception for products like McDonalds and Burger King because they actually have a storied history". Or to take it one step further: "we wont delete XXX article because no one has DRV'ed it, but we will delete Spyware Terminator recreations without question or discussion". Cableguytk 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • • • Look, this is the last time I am replying, because I have seen no sign that you are actually listening to anything anyone is saying. The reason the admins are paying any attention to spyware terminator is because an editor submitted it to DRV or speedied it. An editor with as much access and power as you. The admins aren't "singling you out", they are paying attention to the DRV or speedied items, which is there roles as admins.

If an editor, any editor, were to bring the other articles you keep talking about to their attention via DRV or speedies, they would pay attention to those. In fact, the main reason for deleting you article is lack of reliable sources, and the spybot article is tagged as having the same problem. So people aren't giving the spybot article a free pass, they are noting it has the same problem. And if someone were to DRV it, it would need to prove it's notability the same as your article. Yes, your article happened to have been DRVed and spybot wasn't but that wasn't "singling out", it is happenstance. There are over 1.8 MILLION articles on wikipedia, and as such there are many articles that have not been properly vetted, wikipedia is an ongoing process so sometimes it just takes longer to get to some articles than others.

Yes, at this point editors and admins are probably "singling out" the spyware terminator, but that is due to your repeated violations of the policies of wikipedia. And the fact that rather than making your article comply, you simply keep reposting it, and arguing loudly that it should stay, regardless of it's meeting of the rules or not. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease", or in this case "The article who's author repeatedly ignores AfD rulings, doesn't make their article meet the required guidelines, spams it to multiple other listings, and writes multi-paragraph arguments rather than providing any independent sources get DRVed first".

As for the MacDonalds and Burger King articles you bring up The both have multiple independent references and have been the subject of many stories, books, articles, etc. completely independent of the company. Thus they clearly and easily meet the relevant requirements for their inclusion.

Your article doesn't, plain and simple. Your multiple internal references are NOT valid as proof of notability. Why? Because they are not reliable independent references. Period. Everyone here is pretty much trying to tell you "These are the requirements for inclusion, meet these and your article qualifies to be here. Don't and it qualifies to be deleted." And rather than meeting those requirements, you are instead arguing with them and intentionally misunderstanding them or twisting them to try and find a reason why your article should be allowed to stay when it quite simply does not meet he requirements. The fact that other adware articles are simply at the "qualifies to be deleted" stage and haven't yet been deleted is completely irrelevant to this.

If you truly feel that your article should be on wikipedia, here is the only sure-fire way for that to happen. Shut up here. Read all of the various pages of rules and guidelines for inclusion that people have linked to here. Go out and find Reliable independent sources relevant to your article. Link to them in your copy of said article. Re-submit the article to Deletion Review, and ask if it qualifies, and if people say it doesn't find out why, then use that information to fix the article again. If you are unwilling to do that, no amount of arguments or comparisons to other articles is going to make a bit of difference. Improbcat 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • So have you looked at Spybot's Wiki? Are they not "tooting their horn" by talking about awards they have won? Or using the words excellent and applauded? Isn't talking about its features like an ad for the product? And Ad-Aware lists system requirements, why? because they are trying to get people to use it. (ad material) Lets be fair for all or fair for none. sleepm 26 June 2007
• If anyone is interested the previous afds are here:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware terminator
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware terminator (2nd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spyware Terminator . 650l2520 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per above. Can someone nuke the userpage at the end of the debate, as it is blatant userspace spam?
• Endorse Deletion Non-notable software that fails Wikipedia:Notability (web), complete lack of independent sources, multiple AfDs. And the author has stated repeatedly that the page is there to promote the software, which makes it spam by wikipedia's definition. Also is Cableguytk working for or otherwise connected to this company? Because that adds an extra layer of conflict of interest to the debate. Improbcat 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all fail to answer. Is Spybot,Ad-Aware and AVg Antivirus promoting their products? Of course they are! Are they wrong also then? By your standards and definitions of course they are! So why are they allowed to get away with it? Where is the justice? sleepm 27 June 2007
    • Because the admins wont go out of their way to delete pages without someone requesting a proper Deletion review (DRV). Because I dont feel it is in my best interests, or wikipedia's, to go around DRV'ing articles and getting legitimate articles DELETED, Spyware Terminator will receive preferential treatment because there are tons of people out there willing to endorse its deletion because of their misguided views of its previous business ties. That about sums it up. What is worse, is that the article is not even allowed to exist as a stub, and every attempt to do so is deleted without discussion OR DRV NOMINATION, yet a couple of articles I have created that dont have a single source have not been touched because it refers to information which is apparently "notable". Cableguytk 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You keep saying Spybot, etc. are promoting their products on wikipedia. Except that they aren't. People have written articles about them, but the companies themselves did not put the articles up. In fact Wikipedia has pretty clear rules regarding conflict of interest. Furthermore it has been pointed out more than once in this discussion alone that you can not use one article's validity to support another article's validity. If you feel that Spybot, etc. are not valid articles, nominate them for deletion, otherwise shut up about them. Improbcat 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I know the original article was written by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rajeshontheweb or whatever his name was (i unfortunately cant view any kind of history related to the page to say who originally started the article). And that was deleted. Im not accusing those articles of being written by the company, but I am saying that they use the exact same tone of voice, indicating intended product awareness. And no, im not going to DRV them for a couple reasons: 1) it is not in mine or wikipedia's best interest in deleting perfectly legitimate articles, 2) I dont have any interest in defending or pariticipating in a DRV discussion, and 3) I dont feel like getting the data necessary to put up a good fight for pages I care nothing about. I might not be able use that as an argument to prove Spyware Terminator's validity, but the argument is a valid one because while it may not give reason to restore the page, it does bring to light the fact that the page is being given preferential treatment (it is pretty clear that people here have a bit of a bias). Cableguytk 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to make one more attempt at trying to clearly annunciate for Cableguytk and Sleepm:

1. One article existing is not justification for another article existing. Each is evaluated individually.
2. Wikipedia's policies are not designed for "all or nothing" decisions as Sleepm asserts. Just the opposite. Our policies state that each individual article must stand or fall on its own by demonstrating compliance with policies and guidelines.
3. The articles on the other software brands are not, as far as I can tell, promotions by their respective manufacturers. Neither is the McDonalds nor Burger King articles.
4. The core issues here are threefold:
   1. The article, standing on its own merit, fails our notability test.
   2. The article, standing on its onw merit plus the clearly stated intent of the author is to directly promote the product to users and potential users, thereby qualifying as spam.
   3. The articles have already had judgement pronounced through mulitple AfDs.
5. This is not a conspiracy by admins against a particular software brand.
6. The above referenced users can now no longer claim someone hasn't addressed their questions.
7. Cableguy is not quite correct: yes, the original Spyware terminator was created by someone else, but after its initial deletion for spam, he recreated it, and he was the original creator of Spyware Terminator.

Having said all this, and since I'm involved in the discussion so can't exercise admin tools here, with a current tally of 9:1 endorsing deletion, can someone please snow this thing? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The original writer of the article is a forum member of ST. Another forum member mentioned a Wiki article so he took it upon himself to do one. I never cared if there was a Wiki article until I saw other companies getting away with "advertising" while ST got deleted. Spyware Terminator does not need a Wiki article anyway. Word of mouth and effectiveness will take care of its reputation and increase it's following. Goodbye Wiki people!! sleepm 27 June 2007.
  • Oops...I am back. I happened to check Wiki for Smitfraud info and I noticed that "Spyhunter"

is advertised on that page and it even says it is recommended by Wiki-Security?http://smitfraud.wiki-security.com/wiki/ov_Parasite/Smitfraud/. This is a blatant ad. sleepm 28 June 2007.

• If you bothered to visit the [http://smitfraud.wiki-security.com/wiki/About/ about page for wiki-security] you will see that it is run by Four Winds Marketing, LLC. Wikipedia is run by Wikimedia Foundation, a completely separate and unrelated entity. The wiki software, MediaWiki is available for anyone to use, and is used by many companies and organizations completely separate from the Wikimedia Foundation (see List of wikis for some examples). Just because something has "Wiki" in the title, doesn't mean it has any connection to wikipedia, aside from running the MediaWiki software (and possibly not even that).

Also, I checked the SmitFraud page on wikipedia, and see no mention of spyhunter on that page. Please check to make sure you are actually on wikipedia before making claims that something is violating wikipedia's rules. Improbcat 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So why was Spyware Terminator not steered towards this site since you can advertise on it and it is computer security related? And why is Spysweeper, Ad-Aware and Spybot not placed in this area or another area. There should be no "products" in the encyclopedia that can be advertised.

If anything all these type of programs should just say they help remove spyware, adware etc. and that is it. About a 3 sentence Wiki.

• Because until you posted it here, I had no idea that site existed. Nor, I'm guessing, did anyone else who has commented here. Once again it is not part of wikipedia, it is a completely separate website. Wikipedia can't "place" articles in that "area" because it isn't part of wikipedia. If you want to go over there and write articles, knock yourself out.

Regarding your continued comments on the other products, this has been addressed ad-nauseum by myself and other editors. Your continued failure to grasp the point (intentional or otherwise) does nothing but completely undermine your continued arguments.

Let me state it once again, for the last time. The Spyware Terminator article does not meet wikipedia's notability requirements. The only way to keep an article on wikipedia is to have it meet those requirements, as shown by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Your continued arguments based on other articles is not an appropriate or valid argument to make regarding deletion. The very fact that there are 1.8+ million articles on wikipedia, and that all the editing work here is voluntary means that some articles will get attention before others. At some point some editor (possibly me as lately I've been working on spyware related articles, but possibly not depending on my free time) will turn their attention to those articles. But that doesn't affect the Spyware Terminator article at all, as each article has to stand or fall on its individual merits. 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • thanks for your reply.....:)

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

This was closed as a delete on AfD despite only about one third of responders arguing for this option, based apparently only on the opinion of the closing admin. The excuse appears to have been on the grounds of WP:BLP, despite the fact that a) the person concerned is dead and b) if there any grounds that would affect living relatives, neither the closer nor anyone else has suggested what those might be. This was completely out of process. (Edit: Tony has since claimed on IRC that he interpreted this AfD as needing "consensus to keep", evidently due to the odd BLP argument. I've never seen a case like this.) Rebecca 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response of AfD closer: this was not a vote. There were very few editors in favor of keeping the article in its original form. Many wanted a merge. Others pointed out that the case was covered well in Big Day Out. There are living relatives and so BLP policy applies in the sense that we should cover the event, not the person (who in this case is notable only in death). Accordingly, my considered close was as follows:

  The event is encyclopedic, and is handled in an encyclopedic manner in Big Day Out. The person is not encyclopedic and since there are living relatives there are biographies of living persons (BLP) issues. In short, the policy tells us the biographies of people known only for one event needn't be written about in their own right.

  Uncle G's suggestion of a redirect to Big Day Out is well taken. This may be created.

• I created the redirect after an administrator enacted the deletion. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This ignored the well-considered arguments of a number of people familiar with this incident and the media coverage of it, who pointed out repeatedly that the ramifications of this went far beyond the Big Day Out, and had quite widespread effect. This, however, was ignored in favour of your personal desire to delete the article. Rebecca 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn.I looked at the AFD, I looked at the article, and many things were done as a result of her death. I didn't see a BLP violation at all (maybe the inclusion of the middle name, but that one word shouldn't be the cause for a deletion). Also, a major organization, the Australasian Performing Right Association, still runs a foundation in her name, then the issues surrounding her death had more ramifications than just a new set of barricades. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things I found out. First, a government inquest occurred due to the death. Three government agencies in Australia had inquests into her death. Also, there was a safety code adopted for Australia concerts. As for the Foundation, it has been giving grants to artists "Red Sun Band" and Sarah Kelly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SNOW: I suggest that we overturn this now. This information did not come out in the deletion discussion, and Rebecca informs me that the Australian editors came to the debate late. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn citing BLP in the deletion reason is, quite frankly, ridiculous. 'Living relatives involved'? I rather doubt that a Wikipedia article is at the top of their list of emotional priorities - let's not give ourselves too much credit. The facts are (a) the deletion should not have been on these grounds, (b) the subject of the article is notable in her own right, the ramifications of her death were far-reaching and diverse, (c) the article should not have been given the clear by a non-Australian at all. As I said in the AfD - there's no way for the non-Australian to understand how this person's death affected the country. Not the 2001 Big Day Out. A girl dying, a real person, makes it personal. It's a small country, these things don't happen very often. Again, the article should not have been deleted, and certainly not for the reasons cited. Riana (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This deserved a full debate; those advocating keep had strong arguments, and these supposed BLP concerns seem too shaky for me to deserve an out-of-process rougey deletion. Krimpet 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The deletion was fully and completely in process. It isn't a vote, and I sought the line of consensus and fully explained my policy reasons. --Tony Sidaway 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Completely out of process. There was no consensus to delete here, this was, in effect, as speedy deletion with teh so-called "closer" tagging an an admin deleting. BLB doe not apply to dead people, and even if it did, there is not question as the consensus on notability among those who joined the AfD discussion. DES ^(talk) 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Multiple government inquests clearly shows an impact that can be considered notable and Riana adequately explains why BLP is not an overriding issue here. --MichaelLinnear 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, first off the ArbCom appears to be utterly rejecting the claim that the "L" in "BLP" stands for "living" ([1]). Second, any article on a biography can be summarily deleted by an administrator using the "WP:BLP" as a reason [2]. Even so, overturn per Rebecca. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The outcome was reasonable as it is a bio about an otherwise unnotable person due to circumstances of her death. However, new information has been provided by Zscout370 that demonstrates the significance of her death. As I said on the Afd, I think it should be renamed to avoid the details of her life being included; something like Big Day Out crowd control controversy. John Vandenberg 10:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirection to Big Day Out. Tabloidish, hurtful to the family, why would we keep this? Guy (Help!) 10:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth is it either a) tabloidish, or b) hurtful to the family? It simply documents the widespread ramifications of one person's death, as with many other similar articles on the project. If it were actually hurtful to the family (or even could be), I'd be arguing to delete in a second, but there's no evidence whatsoever of that here. Rebecca 11:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as it appears in Big Day Out, Fred Durst is given more play than Michalik. There is actually a fair bit of coverage of her death as an individual event, and resulting changes, and even if the redirect is merited, it should have brought the full article over to Big Day Out, along with all the citations. However, I think that this is correctly its own article, to be mentioned from Big Day Out, instead.
• Endorse The close was proper. Only 5 editors called for keeping the artifle, while 10 called for merging/redirecting to the "Big Day Out" article and 2 called for deleting. The arguments presented by the supermajority were that the non-notable minor was an unfortunate victim of "wrong place, wrong time" and that the death was better covered in context of the event. The arguments for keeping were based on news coverage. The merge/redirect or delete arguments were based on WP:NOT#NEWS and the corresponding WP:BLP section. Edison 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. WP:BLP is undoubtedly an important policy, but it doesn't apply to dead people, nor can it be invoked in vague, non-specific terms to justify early closures of discussions. There are, certainly, circumstances where we should delete first and discuss later - such as libellous attack pages - but this is not one of them, IMO. Walton^talk 16:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, BLP clearly doesn't apply, the article contained very little material about any living person (a bit of incidental stuff about people in bands), and none which I can see any way could be called "potentially controversial". A merge and redirect seems to be a good option, but the history must be left intact for that, and merging doesn't require any type of deletion process, just a couple of edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs).
• Overturn BLP for a dead person... This is another major red flag that we have an issue of people abusing BLP policy. -- Ned Scott
• Merge per clear consensus on the AfD. - Chardish 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and merge per Chardish, Ned Scott and Seraphim. The notion that BLP applies because the person has living relatives has no basis in even the most overarching interpretations of BLP that I had yet seen. I'm also disturbed that a non-admin in fact closed this for deletion and then had someone else delete it. JoshuaZ 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strongest possibly overturn. There is absoloutely no BLP problems here, that case is still cited by media (at least in the occasional television mention of BDO/crowd control) and considering that, and sources to show how well known the incident was (sydney morning herald writing about it 4 years later pretty much clinches it) and also that she is not exactly recently dead (six years is not what I would call recent - except in geological terms :P) there is absoloutely no BLP issues here, and as such it should not have been deleted. Merge and redirect is an editorial decision, one that can be decided upon without and afd, and assuming it is undeleted following this DRV then that discussion can take place then. I would also not be averse to changing the name to a more generic event style one and having her name as a redirect, but that is also an editorial decision - and not one that needed deletion for it to occur. When looking at the debate, I notice that only one person invoked BLP by name, and that was this guideline to writing about people only notable for one event in their lives. That is a suggestion, not policy. I must conclude therefore that the debate was closed by as a delete by a non-admin (a no no) who is heavily involved and has strong feelings on subject of BLPs which may not reflect community consensus (judging by all the back and forth on the policy page) in order to invoke said policy, upon which consensus was that it did not apply in this case. Viridae^Talk 07:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, arguments in favor of deletion were virtually non-existent. If anything, there should have been a merge, and there was no cause to delete the history. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet D’Amour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was previously deleted as article was poorly written and contained no sources; today in process of rewriting and adding sources found article deleted within 5 minutes of post. Would like new article vetted for AfD at least before auto-delete. Would also like to know if there is some existing protocol for adding models and actresses to Wiki, as well as how to ensure that public access photographs don't keep being deleted due to not knowing the correct protocol for copyrighting the images via Wiki tags? AntiVanity 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, valid A7, unless being in a non-notable movie is an assertion of notability. --Coredesat 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn "known via the worldwide media coverage she received after her appearance in Jean-Paul Gaultier's 2007 Spring/Summer prèt-â-porter collection shown in Paris in October 2006." is a claim of notability. So is "D'Amour's appearance on a catwalk for a designer who does not currently produce plus-size clothing was widely categorized as a farcial..." (emphasis added). So is "D'Amour also featured in the title role of Avida, the 2006 French film directed by Gustave de Kervern and Benoît Delépine, which was selected for the 2006 Cannes and 2007 Tribeca Film Festivals." It may be that none of these claims would be judged suffficient for inclusion at an AfD, but that is a judgement call. Any plausible claim of notability, whether sourced or not, and whether it is enoug to clearly pass WP:BIO or not, is enough that an A7 speedy should not be used, but an AfD or a Prod, which allows the question of notability to be debated and settled by consensus. DES ^(talk) 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Even if we accept the unsupported hyperbole asserting notability, the article was an unambiguous G11 as spam. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Even if the previous article was deleted as spam, it wasn't salted because there is the opportunity to create a real page about this model/actress (who absolutely passes notability; a quick Google search shows a fair bit of coverage from newspapers). Deleting an article in under 5m simply because the article was deleted before seems very 'eye for an eye' to me; this admin could easily have given the re-creator a half hour to at least get her information organized. Expecting articles to spring forth from editors fully formed or risk deletion seems contrary the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --Thespian 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't why it was deleted. It was spam. As in: here's a link to her photographer, here's a link to her agent kind of spam. The type which doesn't seriously try to be anything other than an advert. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Guy, clearly fashion isn't your strong point or you would not mention the Wikilink to Nick Knight (photographer) ('her photographer') as spam. AntiVanity 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The deletion log entry said, in full "(CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance) " Not a word about spam there. if this was delted as spam, I would expect a rather different log entry. DES ^(talk) 16:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Which is, of course, my *point*. Regardless of why it was deleted, it wasn't blocked forever; there's absolutely a chance that the new article might have been good, clear and precise (my quick poke showed current news stories and 10k refs on google; a reasonable amount to get a good, solid article from, even if they're 90% fashion blogs). So "Even if the previous article was deleted as spam" there is no reason to believe that, given more than 3 minutes to build a page, the new one wouldn't be better. There was no emergency that made the admin think they needed to take action, 90s after the page was created, to delete it. --Thespian 08:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Nor do I think that fairly describes the article as it was in the last version before it was deleted. It did list her agent, which i would remove from the restored article. It also discussed the alleged controversy surrouding her appearence as a model in a particular show, and allegations that the designer was merely using her to make a point about "the international model health debate". This is surely a subject that is not without general interest. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7 deletion, as there clearly was an assertion of notability. I wouldn't apply G11 to the latest draft. Strike the last sentence, and it would have no spam content, which means that the "fundamentally rewritten" test of G11 isn't met. However, blogs aren't exactly reliable sources, so better sourcing and an improved version are clearly to be desired. GRBerry 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, regardless of whether it should've been speedied or AfD'd, no good sources were provided, I can't find any, and none have been brought to light here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my Google search found links to the Toronto Star, the Sydney Morning Herald, Entertainment Tonight, her work on IMDB (the movie, working on Mo'Nique's Fat Chance, etc). It was speedied in under 5 minutes from creation, and seems to have been entirely based on 'we deleted this before'. It could have easily been deleted in an hour if it was obviously going down the same garden path. Many articles about people who could well be notable, verifiable, and more are deleted because of things that have nothing to do with the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia, but instead being deleted because the article isn't suitable. These are good rules, that we need, but they should not be used to prevent the information from ever being available on wikipedia, if someone is willing to do a better, more complete job. --Thespian 08:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any of those with a search for "velvet d'amour". I do find a lot of blogs, and a lot of articles which name-drop her and are substantially about something else. That's why I didn't say I found "no sources", I said I found "no good sources". If you can provide links to your findings, I'd certainly be willing to look at them and reconsider my position if appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask how you're searching? I'm hitting google with "Velvet D’Amour", just like that (with quotes), and the first non-video hit is to a column about the appearance in Gautier's show in the Sydney Morning Herald (the second is to an SMH blog by the author of the column, and I'm wondering if you just assumed they were both blogs). Other stuff is further down; there *are* a lot of blogs, certainly, but it's there. --Thespian 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same search, I'm guessing you're referring to this one? [3]. That's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about, it's not a substantial source about her, it just mentions her in a photo caption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, no, the first 5 paraghraphs are about her appearance in Gautier's show, with quotes from her and such. (ok, technically, the 3rd paragraph is explaining someone else was there so that D'Amour's reaction to her could be in the fourth). It will take some digging to do a good job with this, but the sources are there. While I don't expect you to do deep on this (I will likely help if overturned, which is why I went further to see what was available), I'm unsure how you missed that. --Thespian 18:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss some there, but that doesn't substantially change my opinion of that one. A few paragraphs about someone in an article which is mainly about something else (the fashion show as a whole) does not make sufficient material for an article. (An article on the show, that mentions her, certainly might work, if there are more sources available about it, and an article about her might work if more material on her over time is available that's more than a quick blurb "X appeared at Y show (brief description and maybe quickie quote)."). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7 ~ As the editor who wrote the article I can assure you that I have no personal interest in promoting D'Amour's career or creating spam; the rewrite was simply to allow individual model entries to the article plus-size model remain as brief as possible, with elaboration to be provided separately under the individual's own article, with AfD to be undergone at that level. Principally though, the resumption of work on the D'Amour article was due to continued vanity edits under her name on the plus-size model article which have been difficult to curb. This article was actually the most neutral, least vanity-stricken posted to date. If I am a little zealous with Wiki- and URL- linking associated names and sources it is only because I've been through a few AfD's and the discussions have indicated that over-citing references gets you further along in the game. AntiVanity 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. An encyclopedia is not a repository of every tiny irrelevant blip in pop culture. This individual has not achieved notable recognition. 209.247.5.138 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]