Duck on a Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The deletion log says only "notability" - but this game is considered to be James Naismith's inspiration when he invented basketball. This should be sufficiently notable! (As well, I might have missed it, but I don't recall seeing an AfD for this article.) Ckatz^chat_spy 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I can't see the article or find a cache, but there would be no reason this article would have been created without mentioning that point. Even if that were the case, games cannot be speedied due to notability issues, so it was invalid no matter which way you slice it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, abject nonsense on a stick. Also fails WP:NFT and WP:CSD#A7. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second is not a speedy criterion. The third is patently false if it inspired a major sport. The first is certainly not nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff, abject nonsense' is a speedy criterion, failure to assert notability is a speedy criterion (and this actually asserted non-notability, which is worse), and WP:NFT means it would likely fail at AfD even if we did waste our time by sending it there. What do you make of this: [..] It was returning to the throwing line with his or her dump, they became the guard. The guard could not tag anyone until he picked up a dump at his feet, nor could he chase anyone until he put the drake back up on its platform. Recent findings believe the bible may be based on this game. However, it does seem that the problem here was that it had been vandalised, and that was the cause of the deletion. An unvaldalised version exists below the delrev text, and that is unproblematic, so that can be restored. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. This wasn't nonsense (so that's out), not everything that fails to assert notability can be speedied (please read A7). That? That's a game, so it can't be speedied as either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that the version I saw was nonsense. The problem was numerous successive vandalistic edits. And anything that fails even to assert encyclopaedic notability is fair game. Wikilawyering and rule mongering just wastes everybody's time. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Again, it would be nice to be able to review the article and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the text. The notability, however, is undeniable, and WP:NFT does not apply. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Total contents of the page at deletion time was "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children’s game.", and a ((stub)) template. Nothing more. - TexasAndroid 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will note, I likely should have PRODed it instead of Speedy. But still, there was not even the slightest assertion of notability. Looking back through the history of the article, it appears to have had more information in older versions, but to have been slowly chipped away by anon edits until it reached the version that showed up on the Short Pages list and got my attention. Not sure why I did not notice the older versions in the history, I'm usually pretty thourough about checking them for vandalism. But still.... Anyway, I have no objections to it being overturned at this point, especially if someone will also restore the older versions that do have the notability claims. Not sure if I should do it myself, given that it's under review, so I'll leave that to someone else. - TexasAndroid 02:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Texas. As the creator of this article, I would be happy if you would be willing to close this thread and bring the article to AFD. That seems like a good consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth noting that this still doesn't meet any criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per JzG and TexasAndroid. Textbook speedy. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've undeleted the article up to the version of February 16, 2007. That version is sourced and asserts notability. Since then, it had been vandalized down to a substub, but we don't delete articles just because they've been vandalized. --Carnildo 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn - I created this article originally from an AFC request. As you should be able to see from the page, it is mostly certainly sourced with no less a source than ESPN; so I'm not sure how people can say it's "utter nonsense". What's more, the notability concern do not apply, as A7 only exists for people, clubs, and organizations. I beg of you to at least give this article the chance of an AFD and not to go rouge on us and decide to delete it without community consensus. Patstuart^talk·edits 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty clear what happened: some anons nibbled away at it until it was a short unsourced paragraph of nonsense, then someone converted it into a substub consisting of the sentence "Duck on a Rock was a medieval children's game", at which point it was deleted. I've seen this sort of thing twice before, where an article was slowly vandalized to the point of being a speedy-deletion candidate. --Carnildo 07:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore currently available non-vandalised version. That version is not patent nonsense. Sandstein 13:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think the version of Feb 16 will need some expansion, but I agree with Sandstein that it is potentially interesting enough to be used to build on. DGG 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This entry is well-sourced with not just one but two sources, one of them ESPN. Notability and WP:NFT concerns do not apply. I concur with Carnildo's assessment about what might've happened. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is I think what happened. Previous versions going back some way were vandalism. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no logic behind deleting it in the first place. The entire argument around deletion seems cenetered around wether or not the product has recieved notable reviews via newspaper, television, and other such media. Wether or not it has is irrelevant, as Retarded Animal Babies does in deed meet the criteria to have a Wiki site regardless of the content of ANY newspaper. I quote the third rule on Wikipedia's page for notability criteria. "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Newgrounds.com is in fact an online publisher and it is in fact both independant of the creators of Retarded Animal Babies, and quite well known. It's also been featured in G4's "Late Night Peep Show" in an episode that originally aired on 7/18/2006. 69.235.157.150 23:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse, valid AfD just closed, no new information presented. Not liking the result is not grounds for overturning it. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|AfD)

This page was deleted without any discussion or attempt to rectify anything which may or may not have been objectionable. Also it had already survived a nomination for speedy deletion. The controversy centers around 1.) Some find the humor objectionable. 2.) Similarity between B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A and a well known encyclopedia of similar name, ignoring the fact that the encyclopedia is spelled differently and is not an acronym. The Artical is not an attack on a competitor, nor is it a violation of copyright. Also The acronym appears on other pages without problem and is not deleted. The article was clearly marked as humor anyway, and there was no reason at all to delete it. If push came to shove it's not like the acronym couldn't be changed anyway. I'm sorry if the article offended an administrator, but I didn't make the acronym up, I was simply using an acronym that has already been in use on other pages. This Humor Piece was never given the five days of discussion required in the rules.Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cris! I withdraw the objection. The page just isn't that important. I would hope that somebody will move the page, undelete it, or at least allow me to change it, but what I won't do is make a spectacle of it, or myself. Do with the page as you will, I trust your judgements. I will go back to patrolling new edits, and when I become bored, perhaps write another article. Be well everyone, and thanks for listening. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WTF? patent nonsense and/or trolling. Not remotely funny. We really don't need to debate this - take it away.--Doc^g 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:W.T.F.?. I could move it back to user space, seriously, what was the point of sending this to WP space in the first place? ~ trialsanderrors 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will be acceptable- it was moved to WP because ALL of the humor pages it links to and links from are in WP space. As I pointed out, this is not a solo-page, or a solo-acronym, there are about 15 other VERY SIMILAR humor articles written the same way, and with similar content. My thinking was that if THEY are all in WP space, then so should this article. Move it to user space if that will save it from deletion, but I would much rather that the article get the same considerations as the other articles. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless it really is utter nonsense, I suppose it could peacefully co-exist with the rest of Wikipedia as a userspace sub-page. (I say that, as I got told off for using the word "userfy" earlier this week, silly me.) Chris cheese whine 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOT The X Factor. There's no need to make a spectacle of it. Chris cheese whine 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• E.N.D.O.R.S.E. deletion, valid rationale for deletion. It's either G1 or G10. --Coredesat 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not as funny as Sue thinks it is, sadly. 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Deletion endorsed As per Doc glasgow, the content appeared to be patent nonsense, and even borderline trolling. Humour is subjective. The deletion was valid. --sunstar net^talk 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Airforce-ti.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

This was a free public domain image, published by the U.S. Air Force on their official website, of a female Military Training Instructor at a graduation parade. Image was used for approximately two months in the articles Drill instructor, Recruit training, and History of women in the military. On 22 March, the image was deleted pursuant to a WP:OTRS complaint. According to the deleting admin, the complaint originated with unspecified "people from the Air Force"; its general nature was that one of the persons depicted had undergone disciplinary action since the photograph was taken (explained in the edit summary of this diff by the deleting admin). This would seem to be corroborated by the fact that the Air Force has since removed the photo from their official website as well.

I've been over and over the image policy and can't find a policy justification for the image's deletion, unless it's WP:IAR. The image was in the public domain and did not contain any negative information about the individuals depicted. The deleting admin did not specify whether the complaint came from Air Force personnel in an official or unofficial capacity - either way, I can't find a policy supporting an undiscussed deletion for these particular circumstances.

I'm no attorney, but I guess the question comes down to this -

1. If the request was made by the Air Force in an official capacity, can they withdraw an image from the public domain once they have already released it?
2. If the request was made by Air Force people in an unofficial capacity, who simply have some objection to the person depicted in the photo, can they have the image deleted without discussion via a WP:OTRS complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I should have posted this earlier, but, in case anyone wants to see what the image looked like, here it is as hosted on another website. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum 2 - The deleting admin has apparently gone on a WikiBreak and is unavailable to answer questions - can another admin get the ticket number and take a look at the complaint? RJASE1 ^Talk 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What I think the question comes down to is "Is it worth the trouble to tell them that they can't have the picture deleted?". So if there's a picture that would work just as well, pleas use that instead and save the trouble. If there isn't, which I suspect, it's more complicated, but we still shouldn't get into unnecessary trouble based on the fact that it's not really valid. -Amarkov moo! 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Complications
• According to the edit summary there, they apparently dismissed her for posing for Playboy. She is (former) U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Michelle Manhart. The WP article is well sourced , including BBC, but has no image. The Playboy pictures appear (as obvious copyright violations) at various places in the web, (and perhaps the dismissal was well justified by the applicable standards).
• At present , the picture used for History of women in the military is that of Nicole_Malachowski, the WP article on her used a somewhat less striking picture. (It's the same person, as shown by http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/pilots.html, which has the picture under question and her name). Her career seems to have been both distinguished and uncontroversial. It's a suitable replacement. For the other three pictures, an amusingly more stereotypical replacement was used, and is in fact appropriate.
• However, the US government probably has no right to withdraw an image except for national security considerations, and perhaps it is our responsibility as citizens to see that our rights are preserved, and some think this best done by exercising them vigorously. I do not know just what photograph we had--possible the one from the BBC story? The picture should be restored to commons, and belongs, in the right place, the article on the person. I don't really see how we can defend it being used under drill instructor. We should simply treat it as an ordinary editorial decision. DGG 23:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the problem is that the person in the picture is not identified as Michelle Manhart - though I agree with you the similarity in names is probably not coincidental. Has anyone established that this is, in fact, the same individual? I've searched for a reliable source, but have been unable to find one. And I guess the secondary point I wanted to make here was that, if other images for the articles were preferred, this was not the way to go about it - it should have been discussed on the articles' talk pages. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion despite the above original research - this is not worth the trouble. OTRS personnel are privy to private correspondence and have to make judgement calls. They should be left to make them unless there is incredible reason to do otherwise. This is not such a case. No, copyright holders cannot revoke free licences, but as a courtesy we routinely remove images on similar grounds - particularly when they contain identifiable individuals.--Doc^g 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I understand - I've never before had any complaint with the OTRS process. I'm not asking for the specifics of the OTRS complaint; I'm just hoping for someone to verify the deletion was in accordance with policy and to be informed (in a general way) of the specific policy applied. I don't think that's unreasonable. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we receive complaints, we try to be helpful. When the request is reasonable and won't make wikipedia fall down, we try to comply. Wikipedia can have very negative effects on real people in the real world - OTRS operators use their judgement to try to mitigate that. It isn't always about citing specific policies by section numbers, it is about the spirit of the project and doing the Right Thing. It's often a difficult judgement call.--Doc^g 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - no arguments here. If there was the possibility of harm to an individual, or even if the person depicted in the image requested deletion, I would be first in line to support that. I'm just skeptical that this is the case here. (Although I do want to emphasize that I sincerely believe the deleting admin was acting in good faith, I just disagree with the decision.) RJASE1 ^Talk 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The image seems to have been removed from its original location [1]. Not sure if it has been deleted or simply moved, but if the former we should probably follow suit. ~ trialsanderrors 01:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but why? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of US government public domain images on WikiMedia, most of which are not currently displayed on a government website. This doesn't invalidate their public domain status. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I'm guessing in this case it was pulled for a reason. ~ trialsanderrors 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Argh - I'm trying not to look like some psychotically-obsessed person by responding to every single post here, I'm just looking for a coherent explanation of what that reason could be. I should say I'm perfectly willing to drop this whole thing if someone could offer a substitute free image, of comparable quality, of a female enlisted Air Force drill instructor. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for identity, I think one of the not quite legit web sites has our picture as well. But after looking around a little in a scientific spirit, I can see why the Air Force would have wanted it removed. To describe it in words, one of the pictures had her wearing (only) a small part of a uniform similar to that of a drill instructor, and a good deal of fun was made with that concept in the legends. It wasn't the government being ridiculous--it was the govt being, actually, fairly sensible, though it may pain me to say it. Considering the readership of Playboy, legit edition and otherwise, it would have been a mockery to use her for this. We should pick another case to defend our rights. DGG 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. As a licencing and policy matter, the issue is clear: the image is PD, we infringe no laws that I can think of by keeping it, and it is of encyclopedic use (if only to illustrate Michelle Manhart - one can even read the name tag). I can imagine that the picture is mildly embarrassing to the ex-sergeant and the USAF, but since when is it part of Wikipedia's mission not to hurt the tender feelings of the U.S. military and the amateur pr0n stars it employs? We are, after all, not censored. Sandstein 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are a educational charity not a free-speech campaign group, or a gutter newspaper, which will defend its rights to embarrass people regardless of the educational metits. (Use of this image to illustrate Manhart would clearly constitute original research, anyway). Your argument is unacceptable.--Doc^g 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a newspaper or a campaign group, but neither are we a charity (the Foundation is). We are an encyclopedia, "a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge". What matters is whether that information is notable and within our scope, not whether it embarrasses someone. I'd have no problem deleting the article on Michelle Manhart, since it's essentially a (marginally interesting) news story more appropriate for Wikinews. But as long as we have the article, us including this harmless picture can hardly embarrass the woman any more, given that the porn images she posed for are already all over the web along with her full name. It's also a good image well suited to illustrating various military-related articles. (As to OR, no: the name is right there on the name tag, no research required.) Sandstein 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point. It's a good quality image, but not really representative of what air force training instructors actually look like - if it was, there would be no need to advertise for new recruits, they'd have to beat them off with a stick. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, per Doc glasgow. --bainer (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Doc. When identifiable people are concerned, and free replacements are reasonably available where necessary, OTRS people shouldn't have to publicly state every specific of the complaint. That would sort of negate the point of OTRS. If this were a major newsworthy photo, I might be willing to fight for our right to use it per freedom of speech concerns, but that simply isn't the case. If we're Byzantine about simple deletions like this, it will mean we lose all our teech when a real free-speech issue comes up. Mak (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nobody is asking for the specifics of the complaint. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. My own experience with OTRS and my familiarity with the way Doc handles these things leads me to the conclusion that even when not all the details are public, the decision that was made was the most sensible. We´re not censored, but neither are we obliged to follow the lead of other websites that make decisions based on other grounds or standards than we do. --JoanneB 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Absolutely no reason that this image needs to be used. At times we need to make judgment calls that balance Wikipedia's mission and that of people in the image and the image's owner. I trust OTRS volunteers to do their job and make these tough calls. FloNight 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, as deletion is the correct tool to be used when a not-public person has found a picture of themselves being published by us solely because copyright is not involved. Jkelly 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The picture isn't the least bit embarrassing or salacious per se (no matter what hyperbole Doc Glasgow offers up about the "gutter press"), it's public domain, it illustrates an actual existing encyclopedic subject (Women in the military or Michelle Manhart -- whether the latter is worthy is an entirely separate issue), and "because the Government wants to sweep this under the rug" is a lousy excuse for a pre-emptive deletion. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Including this particular image smacks strongly of WP:POINT. Are there really so few pictures of air force training instructors that we absolutely must have this one? I think not. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Per Doc, FloNight, Guy, Jkelly et al... This image does not further the cause of the encyclopedia. We are not investigative journalists or tabloid press. OTRS was asked to do something, the trusted person that handled the ticket acted, and to undelete causes further needless drama. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. An image of someone who has now become someone specific and identifiable is no longer the best image to illustrate a generic article. Re: supposed censorship, WP:POINT. It's a judgment call, certainly, but I'd come down on the deletion side.--SethTisue 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Honestly, I appreciate the declarations of support for the WP:OTRS process - I share it, as I expressed above. But most of the votes above ignore and/or misrepresent my argument. Nobody is asking for confidential details of the OTRS complaint (Nobody has to, because the deleting admin already disclosed the reason for the complaint). So it boils down to one of two situations:

1. This is a free, public domain, photo of Michelle Manhart - a subject of a Wikipedia article and a public figure who is apparently notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia currently has no other free image of this person to illustrate the article. In that case the photo would be suitable for illustration of the article Michelle Manhart.
2. This is a free, public domain, photo of a person other than Michelle Manhart. In this case, I can't see any reason to delete the photo - even if not used as an agreed-upon photo for particular articles, it's certainly suitable for the Commons. Any reasonable person viewing this photo would agree that it couldn't possibly embarrass or demean anyone in any way.

The deleting admin is a teenaged high school student who is currently on a Wikibreak and is not anwering any questions regarding this undiscussed deletion. All I have asked for is a review of this deletion per existing policy (and I include WP:IAR and WP:AGF as part of that policy) to ensure it was the best thing for Wikipedia. So far, nobody has admitted to getting the ticket number of the WP:OTRS complaint and reviewing to ensure it was a correct deletion. I remind all that WP:DRV is not nose-counting, but a review of policy application, and respectfully ask the admin closing this case to carefully review all facts of this deletion (including the original OTRS complaint) to ensure this case was handled correctly. Thanks - RJASE1 ^Talk 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fact that Jaranda is a 'teenaged high school student' relevant? --Doc^g 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hugely relevent, only a contributing factor in my request that someone with experience review the complaint, that's all. I'm more concerned with the fact that Jaranda is not present to answer my concerns regarding this undiscussed deletion. Calm down. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so bloody patronising - I am perfectly calm. It is you that is engaging in the ad hominem.--Doc^g 02:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No ad hominem intended, as I stated in the comment immediately above yours. Are you going to address any of my other concerns? RJASE1 ^Talk 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Doc glasgow. I suspect that a hypothetical decision to restore here would receive attention at the Foundation level, and I find the undue emphasis on this image to be inexplicable. Newyorkbrad 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason for your suspicions? RJASE1 ^Talk 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that OTRS-based deletions or redactions are often based on factors not appropriate for discussion on-wiki and therefore often are not subject to on-wiki review. I have no information beyond the public record concerning this particular deletion. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, no valid reason to delete what seems like a perfectly good public domain image. If the Air Force is embarrassed about it, there's nothing to say that we'd have to use it in the articles where it was used before. Maybe it should just go on Commons? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still under discussion, information being added. Since its first entry, the very small piece on Laurence Scott has grown in information. It includes at least one citation, signaling that the subject has been written about by others. Further, more than one Wikipedian contributor had begun working on the article.

Finally, "notability" is not a black or white issue. There is a spectrum of "notability" that should correspond to the length of the article. Laurence Scott is not as notable as, say, Albert Einstein, but Scott is more notable than, say, my postman. There has been nothing that any rational person would label discussion about deleting this little article. Thus, we should let it ride as other people add information to it. James Nicol 14:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. There is one source, not the multiple required by WP:N. There is no way that any rational discussion could arrive at a consensus that one source is multiple sources. -Amarkov moo! 16:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. As I said in the article's original AfD discussion, the subject fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. One article mentioning him as responsible for some paintings in a Harvard basement does not seem to me to establish notability. The article creator's continual recreation of it in the face of the AfD and several g4 speedies isn't very endearing, either. Deor 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keeping. We see in Deor's remark that this has more to to w/ personality issues than w/ the quality of the article. Sources that have used Scott's translation of Propp are numerous. Would you like them listed? If Scott is not here, then where would one go to find out about him? How much space are these paragraphs taking up? In other words, what is the harm in keeping this small article and permitting it time to grow? James Nicol 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The nomination is your opinion, unless you choose to withdraw it. GRBerry 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Umm, you don't get to respond to your own proposal. I strongly suggest that you strike out the response above. Deor 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this a discussion? I can incorporate this remark w/in the proposal, if you want. I'd love to see those questions answered. James Nicol 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's nowhere else people can go to find out about him, we can't have an article, because articles need to be based on sources, not original research. -Amarkov moo! 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Amarkov, for conceding my other points: These paragraphs take up very little space, and there's no harm in keeping them until others, like the "Relister" below, add to the information. As for notability? How about publishing Pound & translating Propp? James Nicol 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't concede your other points. And there is harm in keeping them if they're unsourced, because they may not be true. And notability, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is defined as [[WP:N|having multiple independent reliable sources. -Amarkov moo! 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Notability" is not defined as having multiple sources. "Notability" is defined as a contentious issue. Further, the Wiki-page on Bio says "The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion". As to truth or falsity, what are you disputing? James Nicol 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Notability normally is not defined that way, true. But Wikipedia articles don't just have to meet a definition of notability. They have to meet WP:N, which does require multiple sources. You're right that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but that isn't what this was. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting doesn't establish truth. Correcting establishes truth. We post what information we know about Laurence Scott, and others, who know more or different, add & emend. Behold: Truth. James Nicol 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Relist In the previous AfD there was no real discussion, nor attempt to improve the article. I usually spot these, but these was so little discussion I apparently didn't. Treat it as an appeal from my mistake if you like. Looking at the merits, Apparently Professor of Linguistic at MITs, student of Jakobson. The presumption is that Full professors at major universities are likely to be notable. It's true the article just says he taught at Michigan and MIT for all of his career, so he might possibly not have been a full professor--or possibly not even a professor but an instructor. Most likely a typical example of over-modest article writing from academic or their families--almost as frequent as overblown puffery from them. More career details forthcoming as soon as I check for them. (By my slip-up I posted first on the archived AfD page--I apologize.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Thank you! A voice of reason, rising above the ad hominem and bureaucratic. We should be looking at facts, not rushing to dismiss. Give us a chance, please, to make the case for Scott. I resent having Nicol's sins, if they are sins, held against me. -- SocJan 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Reasons have been well covered by other participants in this discussion.--SethTisue 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Few !votes, but a borderline A7 anyway. Clearly fails the professor test. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse re-deletion. Neither the recreated article nor this discussion have turned up evidence to justify overturning the previous AFD decision. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason "the recreated article" doesn't have the evidence you ask for is that someone's too-speedy-for-comfort deletion caused my additions to the article to disappear just as I was uploading them. I had no idea that an entry could disappear in mid-edit! (See my comment, below, in which I sketch those additions.)--SocJan 11:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion A reasonably thorough search through a number of databases and catalog has turned up no additional book and no published papers--nor could those who had worked on the article provide me with any further information. He was apparently not a professor, but -- just guessing-- may possibly have been a language instructor such as many large universities used without having them actually on the faculty. There were quite a few ghits, and GS hits,and apparent database hits, but they are referred back to his editorship of Propp's seminal book--a book very widely cited. Delete and salt. It has now been thoroughly done, and there is no reason at all to expect anything else to turn up. I think the originator now realises this. I thank everyone for their patience while this was being double-checked. DGG 08:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Relist. Is a small press publisher, book designer, and master printer not "significant"? Educate me about what counts on Wikipedia. I was thinking of working hard on an A. Doyle Moore entry (proprietor of The FInial Press, publisher of many important concrete poets), but perhaps I would be wasting my time.

I first visited the Laurence Scott entry a day or two ago, noted that it had been tagged for speedy deletion, and immediately went to work adding what I know about Scott (which I believed adequate to justify an entry for him). But when I tried to save my work and clicked on "save", I got a message that WHILE I WAS AT WORK on the page, it had already been speedy-deleted! I could not recover my work -- which was fully attributed to reputable published sources. I could not even view the page. So first let me thank someone for protecting the text. I have now been able to read it and, as I feared, to confirm that my changes were lost.

Let me summarize their substance here; then perhaps we (whoever "we" is) can decide whether a Laurence H. Scott entry is justified by Scott's "significance".

What little I know about Scott comes by way of my interest in the career of Guy Davenport (among many other things, a Pound scholar). As the protected Scott entry reports, Davenport and Scott printed a limited edition of Ezra Pound's CANTO CX. What the entry does not (yet) say is that theirs was the world's first edition of that Canto; moreover, that their version is NOT the version that made it into the Pound canon currently in print. Anyone willing to check the holdings of major research libraries will discover that the Davenport/Scott CANTO CX is a prized holding of rare book rooms around the world.

Scott printed two other Davenport pieces, Davenport's "Ezra's Bowmen of Shu" (erroneously listed as a Pound piece in the protected entry) (but would not be had my work on the entry been saved). The piece in fact published for the first time a drawing by sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, whose "Hieratic Head of Ezra Pound" is justly celebrated, and a letter Gaudier wrote from the trenches of WW I to John Cournos, another friend of Ezra Pound, using Pound's "Song of the Bowmen of Shu" to describe his (Gaudier's) own situation at the front, where he was soon to be killed. Almost two decades later, Davenport used the Pound poem and the Gaudier letter as elements in his own tribute to Gaudier, THE BOWMEN OF SHU. A third Laurence Scott / Guy Davenport collaboration was Scott's setting and printing of Davenport's poem "Cydonia Florentia", dedicated to the infant son of experimental film maker Stan Brakhage. I own copies of two of those three pieces and can attest to their importance as examples of fine design and printing and as pieces of significance in Pound and Davenport studies.

If given another chance to contribute to a Laurence H. Scott Wikipedia entry I would, of course, provide this information more neutrally and with proper attribution, referring to published bibliographies and appreciations. The Joan Crane bibliography of Guy Davenport's work, for example, covers Scott's work with Davenport in some detail. See ref at Davenport page.

I am just this week in touch with others who know other (non-Davenportian) aspects of Laurence Scott's careers as artist and as small press publisher of important poets. I have reason to believe that they would strengthen the Wikipedia entry on Scott, if allowed the opportunity to do so. --SocJan 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can those supporting keeping the Scott page point to the specific language in WP:BIO (and/or WP:N and WP:PROF) that they think justifies Scott's inclusion? Some are arguing that Scott is an important and interesting person to some people, but I'm not seeing arguments that specifically address how Scott meets the specific requirements of WP:BIO. That's the real issue here.--SethTisue 16:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Scott meets this Wikipedia notability criterion: "The person's work either (a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument (b) has won significant critical attention, or (c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance." His hand-printed limited editions of notable poets are found in the rare book collections of many important research libraries -- The Bodleian, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, NYPL, etc. Rare book collections are in the book world the equivalent of art galleries, no? (But, as long as it appears to me that the Speedy Delete Police are dead set against a Scott entry in order to teach Nicol some sort of discipline lesson, I ain't gonna do the work of listing his publications and the institutions that value them highly .)

I know only about Scott's career as friend and publisher of significant poets; he appears to have done other significant things that other people could document -- if only there were a stub they could find. Wikipedia used to allow people interested in an obscure figure each to contibute to that person's record, without first finding each other outside Wikipedia. Deleting an inoffensive entry that was not spam, that was not self-listed (Scott is dead), that did not violate copyright, destroys that potential synergy.

Police should concentrate on real crime -- and be careful not to shoot bystanders. Does Wikipedia have a police training academy? If not, maybe one is needed.--SocJan 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using your police analogy, the defendant (article) was arrested by me (bad cop) and sent to a judge (admin), where he had a bench trial (speedy deletion). The judge found the defendant innocent. The case was appealed and sent to a jury trial (AFD), where a jury gave their opinion to incarcerate (delete) the defendant, and a judge (admin) agreed. The defendant then repeated his prior violation and was re-arrested and sent to a bench trial again. That judge (admin) followed the previous ruling of the judge/jury and once again deleted the article. This was repeated two more times, and only now has the defendant decided to hire a few lawyers (you being one of them). The lawyers are arguing their case (this discussion) before an appeals court with a jury, and are on their way to losing. Now, tell me where did the "police" go wrong here? Maybe you should be the one attending a class of some sort. Betaeleven 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - as per all above. Betaeleven 14:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep for a time to permit article improvement, then relist if necessary. Good-faith articles should not be deleted based on an AfD with two !votes. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, O Sweet Lone Voice of Reason and Moderation.--SocJan 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I feel this was speedy deleted without sufficient discussion to reach consensus (only one reponse was listed). I have seen similar articles go through more thorough discussion, and in some cases kept, and I think an article originating from a major publication like this should be given a bit more discussion before it is deleted. 23skidoo 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy endorse, copyright violations can not be undeleted, regardless of the merits of the content. No prejudice against creating an article about it, but any article which is the list should be speedied as a copyvio. -Amarkov moo! 15:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse yet another copyright violating "best of" article. Even if it were not a copyvio, it would be unencyclopaedic - we do not need an article on every single seasonal spacefiller. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a confirmed copyright violation. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bikini Carwash Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This is a legitimate movie and the reason provided (Virtually everything in this movie is redlinked) seems odd to me? since when is it a reason for deletion. what are the criteria for inclusion of movies ? Hektor 10:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC) http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103812/ ImdB entry[reply]

• Send to Afd - probably crap, but needs a debate. IMDB is not indicative of notability.--Doc^g 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. What speedy did it qualify under? --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It was an unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is) but I don't care if it goes to AfD. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sending to AfD - may as well debate it there.--Doc^g 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this course of action. Chris cheese whine 12:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • So, in other words, it didn't qualify for speedy deletion. Thanks for reversing yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. In other words, it did qualify, but has been contested. Chris cheese whine 12:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion log shows that this CSD "didn't match WP:WEB fully". I am appealing this CSD, as I rewrote some of this article, I know that I cited Edge (magazine) and Computer and Video Games (magazine) for certain passages. This did have third party sources, from very established reliable sources. It should have been prodded or AFDed. - hahnchen 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, "doesn't meet WP:WEB completely" is not a speedy criterion. And seeing as the article deleted in AfD had no reliable sources, a new AfD is in order for G4 to work. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - notability guidelines are not policy and certainly not speedy deletion criteria--Doc^g 11:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, appears to be an invalid CSD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hold on a moment, the deletion log for the article reveals it was deleted as the result a AfD a year ago, and the article was recreated without going through a review first. Wouldn't the speedy be justified under WP:CSD#G4? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 09:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, following Amarkov's comments above. I have recreated other articles without pandering to DRV such as Zen of Sudoku (although I did not originally recreate UK Resistance, merely tidied it up) - hahnchen 12:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

• ((1st AfD))

Article was preserved on the basis that, amongst other things, the article was well-referenced, and notability was demonstrated. The references have since failed to stand up to scrutiny - one even turned out to be a complete misrepresentation (details on the talk page). Turns out that this is in fact Just Another Mailing List after all. Chris cheese whine 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. I think it needs to be made clearer that disagreeing with the consensus (or lack thereof) is not a valid reason to bring something to DRV. -Amarkov moo! 00:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought one of the grounds for bringing things here is "new evidence", which there is - namely that the evidence presented was bogus. I believe this may have materially affected the outcome, and a significant number of the keepers would not have been so inclined. Chris cheese whine 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... I could be missing something, but I'm not finding anything explaining why any of the evidence was falsified. Could you clarify? -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. No problems on this one on my end. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Quote: On the one hand, ... there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed. Only the attribution later turns out to be fabricated, and this isn't a problem? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was acceptable to simply make up citations to put into articles. Chris cheese whine 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see no need for this DRV, really. The article was not deleted, and would never have been deleted from the discussion that actually took place. If Chriscf wants to list the article for a fresh AfD he can, but I think he should probably wait a little while; this was an intense debate and repeating it immediately would be foolish. Mangojuice^talk 04:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse What parts of the evidence if any were bogus is being discussed on he article talk page, & I would not assume what the consensus there will be. I wonder what is so particularly wrong with this particular article that the AfD was thought worth the trouble of a Del Rev. DGG 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's the complete lack of valid sources, but I could be wrong :o) Guy (Help!) 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete rogue afd result - article has precisely NO external sources.--Doc^g 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When the AfD was going on, it did. Version just after AfD. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ... which is precisely what I said. They are all bogus - they are either false, circular, or do not attest to what they're being used to support. All of which is why those references are no longer there. Chris cheese whine 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I find the analysis of sources to be a compelling argument for deletion, but it's obvious to me from the above that more discussion is needed. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, if not Overturn. The discussion was closed as "On the one hand, per trialsanderrors, there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed." The argument by trialsanderrors was that it is a "scientific mail list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions" -- the article never stated anything about "number of noteworthy predictions" and there were/are no references to establish it. Most of the Keep votes were thanks to the creator of the article dropping notices on talk pages, and provided no solid arguments to explain notability ("notable in academic circles" - no refs, "number of noteworthy predictions" - the article never stated that, "Keep per...", "seems notable"). Incidentally, the creator has possibly a COI ("I entered our "Natural History India Mailing List" in the Encyclopedia (Wikipedia the free encyclopedia on the web) yesterday. Please keep a tab on the Article, after few days waiting time for new articles it will put the Wikipedia Article on our List on top in Google and other Web engine searches."). utcursch | talk 06:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - A misrepresentation of information and subsequent debunking of sources/claims warrants another look at this. Also, canvassing is not acceptable and the COI is worrisome as well. Wickethewok 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I am not sure I would have defended it as strongly on AfD had I seen the quote above. DGG 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist on AfD where it's almost certain to be deleted in its current unreferenced state. Kudos for busting the fake refs. Resurgent insurgent 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if not Overturn: The "citations" on notability all turned out to be trivial, one-sentence or less mentions of the lists name or list address. One of the "references" claimed to be from American Museum of Natural History, but my investigation showed it to be a page from an anonymous Indian web server. Under Wikipedia:Notability_(web), trivial one liners do not count as proof of notability. User:Atulsnishchal the creator of the page, also canvassed selectively to get keep votes in his favor, and misled the users by adding genuine looking, but misrepresented references, making a mockery of the AFD process. --Ragib 07:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do want to point out that I considered the canvassing claim in my closure and came to the conclusion that it wasn't especially damaging (not to say that we shouldn't have a new AfD). If you look, you'll notice that although Atulsnischal did ask for input from several users, including some that supported the article, s/he also solicited several delete !voters, including Lethaniol, Bluestripe, and Woohookitty, plus the solicitation was neutral on what view to endorse. Mangojuice^talk 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As nominator here, I have to concur. The on-wiki canvassing wasn't the typical "OMG GET UR ASS TO AFD AND KEEP IT NOW!", and there's no follow-up to suggest that the targets were chosen to be sympathetic. The canvassing isn't an issue here. Chris cheese whine 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the discussion is leaning towards a relist, I will do the honours shortly. Chris cheese whine 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]