Crysis 2 – Redirect endorsed. History was restored by Xoloz if needed for a future article. – Chick Bowen 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Crysis 2 (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Since we have articles like Untitled Sonic RPG and Crayola Game I don't see why we shouldn't have this. There are sources out there to prove Crysis 2 exists and has been stated in the Crysis article. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 19:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The difference is that those have official press releases, whereas the only source mentioned on Crysis 2 was a chatlog - not an official source, since there's no weight behind it. I have no problem redirecting it to Crysis until such time as there's an official source, but anything else is crystal balling. --Golbez (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion per the above. For goodness sake, Crysis only just came out! And now we're expected to believe a chatlog saying there's a sequel in the works? L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Forgive my, my mistake. Marlith ^T/C 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment Crysis set to become trilogy seems to say that there will be a Crysis 2 and Crysis 3. -- Jreferee t/c 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] That's the same chatlog, though. Not an official announcement. Note it in Crysis, anything else is crystal balling. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I believe that that might be a good reference for the article. It could be deleted should it prove wrong. Marlith ^T/C 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you enter "crysis" at TM search, it comes up with Crysis, Crysis Wars, and World in Crysis. If you go by the order of the filing serial number assigned to the names, my guess is that Crysis 2 actually will be called Crysis Wars and Crysis 3 will be called World in Crysis. -- Jreferee t/c 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Somehow, I feel that Crytek will be sued if they use those names. Halo Wars, World in Conflict. Strange. Marlith ^T/C 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It would make the Crysis article more interesting if Halo Wars, World in Conflict were listed in the Crysis article via a factual statement such as "Halo uses the names Halo Wars and World in Conflict." Of course, we can't draw any conclusion or link between the names, but we certainly can let the reader fill in the blanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse redirection. For the moment, there are very scant reliable sources. I'll note that WP:CRYSTAL is NOT in the CSD, so a simple redirect in the first place would have been about 1000% better, and would have avoided this DRV. History should be restored, if anyone wants it. Xoloz (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Crysis 2 – Redirect endorsed. History was restored by Xoloz if needed for a future article. – Chick Bowen 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since we have articles like Untitled Sonic RPG and Crayola Game I don't see why we shouldn't have this. There are sources out there to prove Crysis 2 exists and has been stated in the Crysis article. Thanks. Marlith ^T/C 19:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that those have official press releases, whereas the only source mentioned on Crysis 2 was a chatlog - not an official source, since there's no weight behind it. I have no problem redirecting it to Crysis until such time as there's an official source, but anything else is crystal balling. --Golbez (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per the above. For goodness sake, Crysis only just came out! And now we're expected to believe a chatlog saying there's a sequel in the works? L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my, my mistake. Marlith ^T/C 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Crysis set to become trilogy seems to say that there will be a Crysis 2 and Crysis 3. -- Jreferee t/c 06:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same chatlog, though. Not an official announcement. Note it in Crysis, anything else is crystal balling. --Golbez (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that that might be a good reference for the article. It could be deleted should it prove wrong. Marlith ^T/C 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter "crysis" at TM search, it comes up with Crysis, Crysis Wars, and World in Crysis. If you go by the order of the filing serial number assigned to the names, my guess is that Crysis 2 actually will be called Crysis Wars and Crysis 3 will be called World in Crysis. -- Jreferee t/c 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I feel that Crytek will be sued if they use those names. Halo Wars, World in Conflict. Strange. Marlith ^T/C 04:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make the Crysis article more interesting if Halo Wars, World in Conflict were listed in the Crysis article via a factual statement such as "Halo uses the names Halo Wars and World in Conflict." Of course, we can't draw any conclusion or link between the names, but we certainly can let the reader fill in the blanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirection. For the moment, there are very scant reliable sources. I'll note that WP:CRYSTAL is NOT in the CSD, so a simple redirect in the first place would have been about 1000% better, and would have avoided this DRV. History should be restored, if anyone wants it. Xoloz (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Willa O'Neill – Restoration by Trialsanderrors of the edits that did not fall under the copyvio deletion reason. – Jreferee t/c 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Willa O'Neill (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Undelete - article was deleted as a copyvio by a blocked sockpuppet but before it was deleted I had substantially re-written it. The subject appears to be notable as a multiple award-winning actress. The deleting admin is on a wikibreak, otherwise I'd ask him. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion; write anew if possible, as that is the right way to fix a copyright violation. The sources in the article, if they were used appear to be IMDB and FanSite, neither of which ranks high on the reliability scale. Is there any solid sourcing available? GRBerry 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] If you're going by the cached version, the article was substantially re-written. That version bears no resemblance to the deleted version. Otto4711 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm confused. None of the versions of the article were copyvio. The entire text of the delete version was "Willa O'Neill is a New Zealand actress." and it had a list of three awards and a list of ten filmography entries. Your substantial re-write essentially consisted of deleting the list of ten filmography entries and adding four sentences. -- Jreferee t/c 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment I restored Otto4711's edits as non-offending. If someone think the article fails A7 or another CSD criterion, please speedy delete. Otherwise we can close this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Willa O'Neill – Restoration by Trialsanderrors of the edits that did not fall under the copyvio deletion reason. – Jreferee t/c 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete - article was deleted as a copyvio by a blocked sockpuppet but before it was deleted I had substantially re-written it. The subject appears to be notable as a multiple award-winning actress. The deleting admin is on a wikibreak, otherwise I'd ask him. Otto4711 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; write anew if possible, as that is the right way to fix a copyright violation. The sources in the article, if they were used appear to be IMDB and FanSite, neither of which ranks high on the reliability scale. Is there any solid sourcing available? GRBerry 14:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going by the cached version, the article was substantially re-written. That version bears no resemblance to the deleted version. Otto4711 (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused. None of the versions of the article were copyvio. The entire text of the delete version was "Willa O'Neill is a New Zealand actress." and it had a list of three awards and a list of ten filmography entries. Your substantial re-write essentially consisted of deleting the list of ten filmography entries and adding four sentences. -- Jreferee t/c 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I restored Otto4711's edits as non-offending. If someone think the article fails A7 or another CSD criterion, please speedy delete. Otherwise we can close this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maleflixxx Television – Four deletions overturned, with consent of deleting admin. These will be relisted individually. – Xoloz (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Maleflixxx Television (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` AOV Adult Movie Channel (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Movieola (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` XXX Action Clips Channel (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` These TV channels were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. After User:Musimax recreated them, I speedily deleted it per WP:CSD#G4. Musimax states they are indeed notable, so I'm bringing this here to see if they can be recreated. I've left out Silver Screen Classics because it's undergoing an AfD. Spellcast (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn all - The above four articles were listed in the AfD four days after the AfD opened. The discussion prior to their 22:36, 10 November 2007 listing in the 6 November 2007 AfD did not apply to the four articles. Out of process deletion at AfD. Without an AfD deletion, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 07:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] I see how the articles were added a few days after the AfD. But if the company that owns the channels, Channel Zero Inc., is deemed non-notable, the company's channels would be too. It's like deleting a song of a musician that has been deleted. Channel Zero Inc. cited more sources than the other articles yet it was still deleted. Anyway, if they need to be listed properly at AfD, so be it. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn as they were improperly joined to the AFD, but relist them separately. PS - as the deleting admin, feel free to undelete, speedy close this, and put them on AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: All of these articles should be restored. Just because Channel Zero Inc. was deemed to be not notable, doesn't mean that every article associated with it be deleted as well. Several of these articles had references and enough substance to deemed them notable. And for those who didn't, then a tag should be placed on them to notify users to add content and expand on them, not to speedily delete them, give users a chance before you delete these articles. MusiMax (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Maleflixxx Television – Four deletions overturned, with consent of deleting admin. These will be relisted individually. – Xoloz (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

These TV channels were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. After User:Musimax recreated them, I speedily deleted it per WP:CSD#G4. Musimax states they are indeed notable, so I'm bringing this here to see if they can be recreated. I've left out Silver Screen Classics because it's undergoing an AfD. Spellcast (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all - The above four articles were listed in the AfD four days after the AfD opened. The discussion prior to their 22:36, 10 November 2007 listing in the 6 November 2007 AfD did not apply to the four articles. Out of process deletion at AfD. Without an AfD deletion, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 07:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see how the articles were added a few days after the AfD. But if the company that owns the channels, Channel Zero Inc., is deemed non-notable, the company's channels would be too. It's like deleting a song of a musician that has been deleted. Channel Zero Inc. cited more sources than the other articles yet it was still deleted. Anyway, if they need to be listed properly at AfD, so be it. Spellcast (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as they were improperly joined to the AFD, but relist them separately. PS - as the deleting admin, feel free to undelete, speedy close this, and put them on AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: All of these articles should be restored. Just because Channel Zero Inc. was deemed to be not notable, doesn't mean that every article associated with it be deleted as well. Several of these articles had references and enough substance to deemed them notable. And for those who didn't, then a tag should be placed on them to notify users to add content and expand on them, not to speedily delete them, give users a chance before you delete these articles. MusiMax (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chicken Soup Game – Article now rewritten at new title; title in question at this DRV is now redirected. Per consensus below, history will be restored under the redirect, should anyone wish to undertake further merging. – Xoloz (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chicken Soup Game (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` 1979 Cotton Bowl (more commonly known as the Chicken Soup Game is a very notable event in college football history. It is referenced in the Joe Montana Article. I think it was deleted because a banned user created it. Thats all fine but if the article was good - it should be kept. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - without prejudice - as deleting admin. Anyone is welcome to re-create (I'll even provide the external links used as references). This article was created and mostly fleshed-out by Jmfangio (talk · contribs) who was proven by checkuser to be a sock of the community-banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). Per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN the article needed to be deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - There is a children's book, some articles [1], [2], [3], [4]. Per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN the article needed to be deleted. Please prepare a draft article in your user space and present that to DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] On a less related matter, what's with that large, annoying ((NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader)) scoreboard posted at the top of the Chicken Soup Game article and about 100 others? I'm surpised no one has put it up for deletion at WP:TfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] It's now at TfD: NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader TfD. -- Jreferee t/c 06:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete deleted article looks okay... it's in the best interests of the project to undelete it. We shouldn't get rid of encyclopedic content just to spite banned users. --W.marsh 13:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete All speedy deletion criteria are discretionary not mandatory; we can choose to ignore them if it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia - G5 even more so; the equivalent clause for edit reverting instructs us that if a banned user reverted vandalism, we shouldn't restore the vandalism just because it was reverted by a banned user. So while it was legitimate to delete the article, it is not required. Tecmobowl was banned for edit warring and ignoring consensus to remove external links, not for poor creations of articles. This article is decent - although probably improvable with the additional sources that Jreferee found. This is a situation where we are better off with the article than without, so we should restore. GRBerry 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete. It doesn't make sense to delete in this case. --NE2 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment: It appears to me that even this DRV was started by a sock of the same banned user. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Doesn't surprise me; the closer would likely disregard an IP editors opinion anyway for the weight of numbers aspect of measuring consensus as there it is no way to be certain who it is. So long as our primary objective is building an encyclopedia, I put the issue of encyclopedic content as more important than racking up points in the vandalism/anti-vandalism MMORPG. GRBerry 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vandalism/anti-vandalism? I'm talking about a user who was community banned for sockpuppetry. He wrote plenty of good content in the meantime so why not unban him? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] He was blocked for very good reasons, as far as I can tell, but those reasons obviously didn't include that he wrote good articles sometimes. Say I went nuts and blocked Jimbo today, would you delete a FA I wrote a year ago but that no one else has made substantial edits to? It's a more extreme example, but the same basic scenario: is good content made... not good... just because of who wrote it? I don't think so. If the guy had been blocked for created hoax articles or faking references, yes, I could understand nuking his articles just to be safe. But the reason he was blocked had nothing to do with creating articles, as far as I can recall. --W.marsh 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Not quite the same situation. He was banned for exhausting the community's patience and then came back to continue editing as Jmfangio. If we don't want him banned and allow him to create new articles and then created DRVs for the articles, then why not officially undo the ban. Hell, I'd support that action. (I wasn't paying attention when he was banned or I may have voiced an opinion supporting him). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Presumably he didn't exhaust the community's patience, though, by creating well-referenced and neutral articles. No one's saying you're wrong about the letter of the law here... but this is decent content, do you actually think the project is better off for not having it? --W.marsh 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete: What GRBerry said. Zocky \| picture popups 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undelete Valid topic and article. Catchpole (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion and redirect to the version I just created at 1979 Cotton Bowl. It is shorter than the deleted version but more neutral in tone, in my opinion, and it has the advantage of not being created by a banned editor. Chick Bowen 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chicken Soup Game – Article now rewritten at new title; title in question at this DRV is now redirected. Per consensus below, history will be restored under the redirect, should anyone wish to undertake further merging. – Xoloz (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1979 Cotton Bowl (more commonly known as the Chicken Soup Game is a very notable event in college football history. It is referenced in the Joe Montana Article. I think it was deleted because a banned user created it. Thats all fine but if the article was good - it should be kept. 24.128.23.117 (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - without prejudice - as deleting admin. Anyone is welcome to re-create (I'll even provide the external links used as references). This article was created and mostly fleshed-out by Jmfangio (talk · contribs) who was proven by checkuser to be a sock of the community-banned Tecmobowl (talk · contribs). Per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN the article needed to be deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - There is a children's book, some articles [1], [2], [3], [4]. Per WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN the article needed to be deleted. Please prepare a draft article in your user space and present that to DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a less related matter, what's with that large, annoying ((NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader)) scoreboard posted at the top of the Chicken Soup Game article and about 100 others? I'm surpised no one has put it up for deletion at WP:TfD. -- Jreferee t/c 15:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at TfD: NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader TfD. -- Jreferee t/c 06:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete deleted article looks okay... it's in the best interests of the project to undelete it. We shouldn't get rid of encyclopedic content just to spite banned users. --W.marsh 13:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete All speedy deletion criteria are discretionary not mandatory; we can choose to ignore them if it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia - G5 even more so; the equivalent clause for edit reverting instructs us that if a banned user reverted vandalism, we shouldn't restore the vandalism just because it was reverted by a banned user. So while it was legitimate to delete the article, it is not required. Tecmobowl was banned for edit warring and ignoring consensus to remove external links, not for poor creations of articles. This article is decent - although probably improvable with the additional sources that Jreferee found. This is a situation where we are better off with the article than without, so we should restore. GRBerry 14:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. It doesn't make sense to delete in this case. --NE2 12:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears to me that even this DRV was started by a sock of the same banned user. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't surprise me; the closer would likely disregard an IP editors opinion anyway for the weight of numbers aspect of measuring consensus as there it is no way to be certain who it is. So long as our primary objective is building an encyclopedia, I put the issue of encyclopedic content as more important than racking up points in the vandalism/anti-vandalism MMORPG. GRBerry 14:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism/anti-vandalism? I'm talking about a user who was community banned for sockpuppetry. He wrote plenty of good content in the meantime so why not unban him? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was blocked for very good reasons, as far as I can tell, but those reasons obviously didn't include that he wrote good articles sometimes. Say I went nuts and blocked Jimbo today, would you delete a FA I wrote a year ago but that no one else has made substantial edits to? It's a more extreme example, but the same basic scenario: is good content made... not good... just because of who wrote it? I don't think so. If the guy had been blocked for created hoax articles or faking references, yes, I could understand nuking his articles just to be safe. But the reason he was blocked had nothing to do with creating articles, as far as I can recall. --W.marsh 16:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same situation. He was banned for exhausting the community's patience and then came back to continue editing as Jmfangio. If we don't want him banned and allow him to create new articles and then created DRVs for the articles, then why not officially undo the ban. Hell, I'd support that action. (I wasn't paying attention when he was banned or I may have voiced an opinion supporting him). —Wknight94 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably he didn't exhaust the community's patience, though, by creating well-referenced and neutral articles. No one's saying you're wrong about the letter of the law here... but this is decent content, do you actually think the project is better off for not having it? --W.marsh 16:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete: What GRBerry said. Zocky | picture popups 14:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Valid topic and article. Catchpole (talk) 16:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and redirect to the version I just created at 1979 Cotton Bowl. It is shorter than the deleted version but more neutral in tone, in my opinion, and it has the advantage of not being created by a banned editor. Chick Bowen 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Bambenek – Speedy close, nothing here that satisfies any of the issues – Core desat 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AFD1`\|`AFD2`\|`DRV1`\|`RFC`\|`RCU`\|`DRV2`\|`DRV3`\|`AFD3`\|`CP`\|`DRV4`\|`DRV5`\|`DRV6`\|`DRV7`\|`SSP`\|`AFD4`\|`DRV8`\|`DRV9`\|`DRV10`)` John C. A. Bambenek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)`(Identified as the 3rd AfD nom for John Bambenek) John C. Bambenek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` ((Identified as the 4th AfD nom for John Bambenek) John C.A. Bambenek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` I know this is a heated issue but I ask participants to approach with an open mind. John Bambenek is the other of 300 or so columns that I can find in Lexis-Nexis and he is referenced in about 200 other articles as the main source or as an expert. These articles include a front-page article in the New York Times, several articles in the Washington Post and an article in TIME Magazine. He's contributed to about a half dozen books I can find on Amazon including a book chapter that will be out on Friday in Botnets: Countering the Largest Security Threat. He's given several talks, he's referenced widely in academic papers on information security, and his own articles have appeared in several print outlets such as the News-Gazette, the Peoria-Journal Star, the Chicago Tribune, Liberty Magazine and others. He also has been explicitly profiled in no less than 3 articles I can find on Lexis. Between his academic and professional expertise, his wide citation in the field and recognition of his experience, his prominent role in several organizations already with Wikipedia pages (Internet Storm Center and Blogcritics), I think its time to review this question on John Bambenek. Many people commented a few years ago he was "almost notable", it has only increased over time to include several hundred more mainstream articles being published by him or about him. I can list them all, but I trust people know how to use Lexis to find them and Google is plenty informative, as is Amazon and his resume that he has online. The previous DRV's and AfD's seem to have been stacked by those with an overt dislike for John Bambenek and it shows because the sysops without evidence immediately label any supporter, regardless of evidence, as a sock puppet and indef. ban him or her. This is no way to build consensus, it's simply establishing your way by force. Let's reexamine the facts this time 130.126.146.201 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Note This was the book I was referencing above that's out Friday. 130.126.146.201 (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment - In September 2007, Bambenek's Federal Election Commission filing against Kos Media, LLC, DailyKos.com, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga for "failure to register as a political committee" was rejected.[5] Likely, this has generated more bad blood that may play out within Wikipedia. Here is a more detailed history of this topic: Keep, 25 December 2005 , AFD1 Delete, 2 March 2006, AFD2 Kept deleted, 15 March 2006, DRV1 Closed, 16 March 2006, RFC Checkuser 17 March 2006 RCU Speedy endorse, 19 November 2006, DRV2 Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD, 18 December 2006, DRV3 Delete, 24 December 2006, AFD3 Copyvio, 27 December 2006, CP [6] Deletion endorsed, 4 March 2007, DRV4 Speedily endorsed, 15 March 2007, DRV5 Deletion endorsed, 21 April 2007, DRV6 Deletion endorsed, 2 June 2007, DRV7 Sockpuppet 10 July 2007 SSP Delete, 12 July 2007, AFD4 Speedy close, 25 July 2007, DRV8 Deletion speedily endorsed, 21 August 2007, DRV9 Endorsed, 6 September 2007, DRV10 -- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

John Bambenek – Speedy close, nothing here that satisfies any of the issues – Core desat 05:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AFD1|AFD2|DRV1|RFC|RCU|DRV2|DRV3|AFD3|CP|DRV4|DRV5|DRV6|DRV7|SSP|AFD4|DRV8|DRV9|DRV10)

I know this is a heated issue but I ask participants to approach with an open mind. John Bambenek is the other of 300 or so columns that I can find in Lexis-Nexis and he is referenced in about 200 other articles as the main source or as an expert. These articles include a front-page article in the New York Times, several articles in the Washington Post and an article in TIME Magazine. He's contributed to about a half dozen books I can find on Amazon including a book chapter that will be out on Friday in Botnets: Countering the Largest Security Threat. He's given several talks, he's referenced widely in academic papers on information security, and his own articles have appeared in several print outlets such as the News-Gazette, the Peoria-Journal Star, the Chicago Tribune, Liberty Magazine and others. He also has been explicitly profiled in no less than 3 articles I can find on Lexis. Between his academic and professional expertise, his wide citation in the field and recognition of his experience, his prominent role in several organizations already with Wikipedia pages (Internet Storm Center and Blogcritics), I think its time to review this question on John Bambenek. Many people commented a few years ago he was "almost notable", it has only increased over time to include several hundred more mainstream articles being published by him or about him. I can list them all, but I trust people know how to use Lexis to find them and Google is plenty informative, as is Amazon and his resume that he has online. The previous DRV's and AfD's seem to have been stacked by those with an overt dislike for John Bambenek and it shows because the sysops without evidence immediately label any supporter, regardless of evidence, as a sock puppet and indef. ban him or her. This is no way to build consensus, it's simply establishing your way by force. Let's reexamine the facts this time 130.126.146.201 (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note This was the book I was referencing above that's out Friday. 130.126.146.201 (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In September 2007, Bambenek's Federal Election Commission filing against Kos Media, LLC, DailyKos.com, and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga for "failure to register as a political committee" was rejected.[5] Likely, this has generated more bad blood that may play out within Wikipedia. Here is a more detailed history of this topic:
- Keep, 25 December 2005 , AFD1
- Delete, 2 March 2006, AFD2
- Kept deleted, 15 March 2006, DRV1
- Closed, 16 March 2006, RFC
- Checkuser 17 March 2006 RCU
- Speedy endorse, 19 November 2006, DRV2
- Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD, 18 December 2006, DRV3
- Delete, 24 December 2006, AFD3
- Copyvio, 27 December 2006, CP [6]
- Deletion endorsed, 4 March 2007, DRV4
- Speedily endorsed, 15 March 2007, DRV5
- Deletion endorsed, 21 April 2007, DRV6
- Deletion endorsed, 2 June 2007, DRV7
- Sockpuppet 10 July 2007 SSP
- Delete, 12 July 2007, AFD4
- Speedy close, 25 July 2007, DRV8
- Deletion speedily endorsed, 21 August 2007, DRV9
- Endorsed, 6 September 2007, DRV10

-- Jreferee t/c 16:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Barnardstar2006.jpg – already restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Barnardstar2006.jpg (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Public Domain status confirmed. See source page. After undeletion, will restore the correct PD attribution it had previously. IanOsgood (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Seems reasonable. Restore. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Barnardstar2006.jpg – already restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public Domain status confirmed. See source page. After undeletion, will restore the correct PD attribution it had previously. IanOsgood (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Restore. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Barnard2005.gif – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Barnard2005.gif (edit \| talk \| history \| links \| watch \| logs) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Public Domain status confirmed. See source page. After undeletion, will restore the correct PD attribution it had previously. IanOsgood (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Image:Barnard2005.gif – restored by deleting admin – GRBerry 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Public Domain status confirmed. See source page. After undeletion, will restore the correct PD attribution it had previously. IanOsgood (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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