Origin of religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Insufficient review of information and sources. Muntuwandi 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) This article is well sourced and a number of notable scholars have researched this area. The reason stated for deletion is that it is an inappropriate content fork. However the consensus in discussion is that both articles, development of religion and origin of religion cover different time periods. The deletion of massive amounts of sourced material is at this stage is unwarranted. Muntuwandi 22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article did have numerous sources, but many were distinctly unreliable references. Additionally, many of the reliable sources were used out of context, as they did not even comment on the subject at hand. In general, the article contained cherry-picked sources presenting an inappropriate synthesis with the open intent of pushing a specific theory. Additionally, the consensus in the AfD was clear about the article and its content, and Muntuwandi has not attempted to discuss the closure with the closing admin. This seems to be an invalid DRV, per WP:DRV#Purpose. Vassyana 23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I endorse the continued deletion of this article. Vassyana immediately above has captured my thoughts on the article with respect to "cherry-picked sources presenting aninappropriate synthesis with the open intent of pushing a specific theory"; I suggested deleting the original article for that reason. Accounting4Taste 03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy if you could provide evidence, just saying that it is a syn without evidence could just be an opinion or a lack of understanding. Muntuwandi 03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're suggesting that I'm not capable of assessing the article and making the decision that I did, let me disabuse you of that notion. I read it, I analyzed it, I considered it in the above-noted context, and that is my opinion. It is an opinion -- it's the opinion of someone who is quite capable of understanding what he reads. I'm not interested in re-writing the article just to satisfy your curiosity about what I think of the topic. That would be energy that is better spent elsewhere, like much of this discussion. Accounting4Taste 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have read WP:SYN. According to my understanding, the article is not a synthesis because all 5 major citations discuss the same evidence with regard to origin of religion. A synthesis is a collection of items that results in a new conclusion that was not made by any of the individual sources. However all the sources have come to a very similar conclusions. If anyone bothers to read them, they will find similar discussions in all the major sources. It is for this reason that the only reason someone can say that it is a synthesis, is either they have not read the sources or they do not understand the material. If I am incorrect please identify some information from the article that is synthesized from the sources. Muntuwandi 04:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and Speedy Close - DRV is not AfD 2. Consensus did not establish that there was a valid division between the articles, but that it was WP:SYN and misuse of the sources. There is nothing here to dispute the procedural close of the AfD. -- Kesh
• Comment The reason for closing was innapropriate content fork. however WP:POVFORK states

  POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first.

  If you look at the history for development of religion there I had never any attempt to edit that article. I had seen it, but the content is totally different from the sources that I have been reading on the origin of religion. As I mentioned before, the development of religion deals with specific religions. Whereas the authors cited make no reference to any specific relgion. The major sources cited include:

• "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553. The author is is professor of anthropology at The College of William & Mary,this is her profile and these are are reviews on her book.
• "Nicholas Wade - Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" ISBN 1594200793, he is a science journalist for the New York Times. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source.
• The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University, ::his profile
• (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3. by Steven Mithen, Professor of Archaeology, University of Reading, his profile.

-- Muntuwandi 23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No one bought this argument in the AfD. I doubt they will here, either. Note the very first sentence of the essay: POV forks usually arise... It is not a requirement that you personally edited the other article to create a POV fork. Someone can create a POV fork of an article without touching the other article, simply by creating a new article on the same subject laced with their POV. As consensus was that you have done here. -- Kesh 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But how do you explain that the information contained in the origin of religion article was and is not found in the development of religion article. The development of religion makes no reference to any archaeological findings whatsoever. How then can it be a POV fork if the material covered is completely different. Muntuwandi 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• These are not average Joes, they are very notable people in their respective fields. by deleting the article a wealth of scholarly information is being lost. Muntuwandi 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid argument in either AfD or DRV. -- Kesh 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My own reading of the discussion was that there was a consensus that the article was a POV fork, but an unresolved dispute as to how that POV fork should be addressed. Some editors thought that there was no redeemable content in the Origin of religion article. Others felt that material should be merged into the Development of religion article. I'm concerned that the decision to delete without giving editors of Origin of religion time to merge may have overreached the consensus. Egfrank 00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to temporarily undelete the entry for this purpose? I do believe there was ample time to merge the negligible amount of relevant information into the Development of religion entry, but actually not enough of a consensus regarding what exactly to do in this regard. I also strongly believe that if this entry is temporarily undeleted a certain editor whose attitude seems to be one of ownership of that entry should be kept administratively from disruptively interfering with the productive attempt to utilize this information--however one accomplishes such a thing.PelleSmith 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to take on the job, the article could be userfied so they could try to find any relevant information to merge. However, it really seemed to be a mess of WP:SYN/WP:OR that would be hard to mine for solid facts to merge. -- Kesh 02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think allegations of OR are due to lack of understanding of the material. So far having read at least five books on the subject there is considerable consistency on the topic. Instead of trying to improve the article, editors have opted to delete relevant information. If anyone takes time to read the aforementioned titles you will find all the same material that is in the article. There was nothing that was created from thin air. I think Jreferee rushed to delete the article. Admins are busy editing a lot of articles so often they don't get a good understanding of the subject. For example jreferee is questioning whether some other articles that I edit frequently should be deleted as well [1]. He is questioning the recent single origin hypothesis. This indicates that jreferee may not have the technical understanding to make an informed decision regarding the deletion of this article.

We were still debating the merger. My question remains unresolved and that is the development of religion deals with some of the major religions of the world such as Development_of_religion#Role_of_charismatic_figures_in_the_development_of_religions and Development_of_religion#Teleological_development. The authors of the books cited make no mention of any specific religion in their works. If anyone bothers to investigate the sources, you will find no mention of islam or christianity. The focus on their study is mainly archaeological and anthropological. Archeology because beyond 3000 years ago, there is no writing. Hence archaeologists are the only scientists who can give any information about history older than 3000 years ago. The development of religion article makes no mention of anything archaeological. I therefore question the validity of the accusation that origin of religion is an inappropriate POV fork of development of religion. I view it as a scapegoat to have the article deleted furthermore i see elements of Anti-intellectualism. These articles cited are peer reviewed scholarly articles. For example google scholar turns up rossano and mithen. I therefore do not understand the hostility towards information that is cited from peer reviewed articles. This is the kind of information wikipedia desires.

One most of the editors calling for deletion just issued one-liners. How can we ascertain that they even read the articles. I would play greater attention to those who gave more comments, especially about the sources because this proves that the read and understood the topic. Many editors just say "delete per nom" but how do you know the read the article. Muntuwandi 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.

That's what WP:AGF is for. Again, you have not introduced any new arguments here. -- Kesh 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete and redirect. the difference between "delete" and "redirect" is the loss of edit history (for purposes of attribution required by GFDL). If the outcome of the AfD debate was "content fork", the appropriate course would have been redirect (if necessary, protect the redirect), not delete (I am amazed at how many admins get this wrong). --dab (𒁳) 16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I severely doubt the usefulness of preserving the history. It's such a mess of original research and misused sources, I'm very skeptical of its value as a draft. Pulling the small handful of useful and reliably sourced facts from the article is like mining diamonds in a dung heap. It would be better just to start over. That said, restore and redirect would be acceptable to me. Vassyana 18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "deletion" on Wikipedia means "hide edit history from non-admins". Just think for a moment of the amount of trash we keep around in edit histories. There is no reason whatsoever to delete material on grounds of being trash, or a content fork. We only delete articles that had no business of existing in the first place, not on grounds of being trash. Plus, there was no need to delete the talkpage either, there was some useful discussion on how to proceed with this case. Even if deletion of the article was justified (I agree it was mostly trash), can we have the talk history back, please? dab (𒁳) 09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure... but... if it can be verified that content was merged into another article, WE MUST RESTORE THE EDIT HISTORY TO MAINTAIN GFDL COMPLIANCE. I rely on the administrators who comment here to make that call. Burntsauce 17:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. There was no attempt to merge any of the information. The issue is far from being resolved. The deletion was premature because there was still a lot of information on the talk page that was deleted. I suggest undeletion and going to mediation. Muntuwandi 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. If people say the article was a mess, there is nothing wrong with cleaning it up rather than deleting information from peer reviewed scientific journals. Muntuwandi 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The sources cited above all use the term "origin of religion". None use the term Development of religion. How then can origin of religion be a content fork of development of religion, when the sources cited use the term "origin of religion". Development of religion clearly deals with religion as a social construction.

One of the reasons I am persisting with this argument is that, with the exception of PelleSmith, no editor has attempted to give any details. Each time I request for evidence of what is wrong all I get is one liners "Its OR, a synthesis, a POVFORK". Wikipedia has guidelines on what constitutes WP:NOR, WP:SYN OR WP:POVFORK and I would like to know how people have used these guidelines to come up with their conclusions. A simple one-liner is unsatisfactory. It could be that people have little understanding of the content, and hence decide to go the safe route and opt for deletion. I would appreciate the unbiased opinions of some editors who have some scientific knowledge in related fields. Muntuwandi 22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If nothing was merged, then endorse deletion, valid AFD. If content was merged, then restore as a protected redirect to Development of religion. I've also changed the tag and blanked the recreated article (it should have been speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4); the history is still available for the purposes of this AFD. Tags are not license to circumvent an AFD decision before the DRV closes, and ((delrev)) is not appropriate here given the nature of the problem. This should probably be clarified. --Coredesat 05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the rest of the history behind the ((drv)) tag, to be fair, although this does not change my endorsement of the deletion. --Coredesat 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is more of a content dispute than a procedural dispute. I still finding it hard that well researched sholarly material from peer reviewed journals is not being given a chance on wikipedia. I have asked for a technical review, unfortunately nobody is willing to review the material from a technical perspective. All I get is one-liners. This is unsatisfactory from an encyclopedia that is all about academics. Wikipedia:Deletion review does allow reviewing content, it is not only procedural. Muntuwandi 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I throughly critiqued the entire entry, and many other editors also commented on content. You have however refused to take any comments into account and simply keep on doing whatever it takes to try to make your point.PelleSmith 11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your critique is that you dispute accepted theories like the recent single origin hypothesis or that grave goods indicate belief in the afterlife[2]. You were disputing the authors of the study not the content. I mentioned earlier User:Jreferee the admin who deleted the article was had never heard about the recent single origin hypothesis and other established articles. This is why I have doubts that many of the people passing judgment on the article have either not reviewed the information or just do not have the technical understanding of some of the subject matter. This is because these are well established hypothesis within the scientific community. So what is happening here is strength of numbers is prevailing over quality of argument.Muntuwandi 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your diff is entirely out of context. My critique was about your selective and sometimes simply erroneous use of sources in the main entry. Now your argument is that you are the only person who understands any of this material? Give us all a break. Pretty much every editor, no matter how sympathetic they were initially to the idea of this entry, has been soured on your tireless crusade. When will you ever give it a rest?PelleSmith 04:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are actually admitting that the article has merit but editors are put off by myself. The stuff is really basic and anyone can understand it if they take the effort. The problem is no one is interested. I have requested some basic questions like whether development of religion and origin of religion are truly the same field of study. Unfortunately nobody has tried to respond to this important inquiry. This is why the debate is being unnecessarily prolonged.Muntuwandi 04:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be clear, no one thinks your synthesis of misrepresentations and factual odds and ends has any merit. Many different editors have explained why. Some people believe that the archaeological evidence of prehistoric religion has merit, and that it has merit in terms of how religion may have originated. Those entries are not two seperate "fields of study," because they aren't fields of study at all, but simply entry headings. Again, several editors have explained why the salvageable entry contents from the origins entry should go into an improved development entry, and again you have refused to listen. I will now refuse to continue this circular conversation with you.PelleSmith 11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not misrepresentations and nobody has explained why. The topic development of religion deals with religion as a social construction and deals with the modern or world religions. The origin of religion deals with its origins of human religious behavior. The suggestion of merging the article was without merit and was simply an attempt to make the issue disappear. As you can see nobody has attempted to merge any of the information, which suggests there was never any intention to do so. Muntuwandi 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Dbachmann, and others started making edits to Origin of Religion in order to improve it for a merge (in fact I made an edit or two but stopped when it was clear you were going to keep on reverting to your synthesized and now deleted version). You kept on reverting his edits to include problematic conjectures, immaterial information, and so on. I don't think anyone wants to touch this information anymore until this DRV is finished and there is some promise of not having productive edits constantly reverted by you.PelleSmith 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dbachmann made an attempt to add some information and I was glad he did, however some of the information he added was not factual. I explained that on the talk page, unfortunately the history of the talk page has not been retrieved but I mentioned the problems. There is a misunderstanding about what a synthesis is. There is nothing wrong with using multiple sources in an article. In fact a good article needs citations from a variety of sources. A synthesis always produces a novel conclusion built from the sources. for example If one source says the population of the world is 5billion and another source says the population of the world is 6billion. Then an editor combines the sources and says the population of the world is the average of the two ie 5.5billion then this is a synthesis because none of the sources says the population of the world is 5.5billion. But if you say that according to source A the population of the world is 5billion and according to source B the population is 6billion. you are not synthesizing because you are merely quoting what they say. Then it is up to the community or the readers to decide which source is reliable.

So the article had citations from a variety of sources each was quoted in isolation from the others. Why people are saying its a synthesis because the sources are from fields not normally associated with religion like archaeology and genetics. Religion is normally associated with the social sciences like sociology, psychology and religious studies. Hence most people are hostile to this new and different approach. However this is the latest information available. king's book is 2007, Wade's is 2006, Rossano is 2006 and Wentzel van Huyssteen 2006. This really is at the cutting edge.Muntuwandi 19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This should probably be speedily closed as this isn't a DRV, it's an extension of the existing dispute. This isn't RFC or AFD II. --Coredesat 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • indeed. this is just about Muntuwandi being argumentative now. He could fairly ask to have his material restored to hist user-namespace, but apparently this isn't necessary and he kept a private copy. The effort he invests in this debate would be much more fuitfully applied to debating the actual topic, at Talk:Development of religion. dab (𒁳) 09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would invest the effort into the Development of religion article if that is the appropriate article for the content. Unfortunately no editor has answered the question, If development of religion and origin of religion are the same topic, then why did the authors of the studies cited use the term "origin of religion" and not the term "Development of religion". This is an important question simply about the titles. Dbachmann himself mentioned that it was a valid topic [3], [4]. Dbachmann has not objectively changed his mind, he has just changed his mind because he finds me annoying[5]. In truth he agrees that it is a valid topic. A further question regarding the development of religion is why is the article discussing modern religions whereas the sources cited make no reference to any specific reason. Wikipedia is about objective knowledge rather than forceful opinions. I have provided external sources for other editors to verify. Unfortunately not a single editor has provided any source from outside wikipedia to counter these assertions. This is some of the worst form of anti-intellectualism I have ever seen on wikipedia.

I have been searching the internet for topics related to "development of religion" and the topics that come up are inconsistent with the content from which the sources I have cited. google search results. If there is an article Origin of language then why not an article Origin of religion. Muntuwandi 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Faraway Ancient Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Encyclopic entry does not deserve speedy delete

The article was Speedy Deleted for Blantant Advertising, here is the Wikipedia definition: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

My reason for undelete: The artlce took no sides, and didn't promote the book in any way, even though I thought it was interesting and funny. All of the other books I like already have a page, so I thought this would be a good subject for my first article. The page had no links or information on how to buy the book. I didn't even mention how I bought it. I had put a brief summary, a few facts the aurthor mentioned in a news paper article and her website, and the cataglory. I had just added the publisher's name, the ISBN number, how long the book is, and a few other encyclopedic facts when it was deleted. I was still trying to figure out how to propery add the Sailsbury Post Newspaper as a source. That's where I first heard about it. --JRTyner 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)--JRTyner 07:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion book appears to be either vanity-published (it's on lulu.com) or similarly extremely obscure. Would certainly not pass an AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't matter where it was published. It also doesn't matter at this point about the AFD process, this is about it being speedy deleted. The page was a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article. It said "'A Faraway Ancient Country' is a book about a woman's journey into the land of mystics and scholars. The book teaches about Catholicism from a Biblical perspective using the King James 1611 Bible. The author claims to have used 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with a Master's Degree in Divinity. The book's ISBN numbr is 978-0-6151-5801-3 . Category: Religion & Spirituality Author: Emissary Copyright Year: © 2004 Language: English Country: United States". There is no advetisement.

And it was taken from here. Advertisement and a copyright violation. I have told you this. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to prove to you it wasn't. Please quite stalking me because it is becoming discontending. --JRTyner 19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Furry Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD1|UCfD2|DRV|UCfD3)

I do not believe the closing reflects the consensus of those contributing to the discussion. "Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated" boils down to "because a lot of people said the same thing, that's worth less than a few people saying several different things." That doesn't seem to make sense, especially since there weren't a lot of arguments given for deletion in the nomination other than (previously hotly-contested) precedent of "identification categories don't support collaboration, and that's the only good reason to have a user category." This was given even though a WikiProject was founded by going through this category. I believe this is an example of trying to make Wikipedia "tidy" and eliminating useful community-building features in the process. (Note that some arguments pertaining to this deletion are in the UCfD for Category:LGBT Wikipedians, since it covers the same ground) GreenReaper 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per the "Sexuality and gender identification categories" DRV on Oct 10 [6]. --Kbdank71 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can people please stop lumping it in with "LGBT", "Sexuality and Gender", etc stuff? Maybe we should use precedents relevant to, dunno, video game consoles. Just about as irrelevant. Bushytails 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. In addition, I could see this having reasonable encyclopedic usefulness: when faced with editing issues on a "furry" article, one could use this to find a user with some knowledge of the genre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or the Wikipedist could do his/her homework and Google/Jeeves search.--WaltCip 16:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, that rationale could be just as valid as Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews, who could aid reasonably well in collaboration with articles regarding anti-Semitism.--WaltCip 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You might want to give Godwin's law a read, WaltCip. Chick Bowen 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reductio ad Hitlerum does not equate to anti-Semitism.--WaltCip 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose that the argument, as I imagine you recognize, would be that although Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews would almost certainly be divisive and inflammatory, such that any prospective collaborative benefit (which would not, necessarily, be all that great; one's disliking Jews does not mean, of course, mean that he/she is well-versed in encyclopedic topics about anti-semitism or specially capable of finding sources for encyclopedic content) would be outweighed by the category's disruptive effect, Category:Furry Wikipedians is unlikely to divide or inflame users or otherwise to distract from the project's mission. Joe 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this constant tug-of-war over "identity" user categories is getting silly. Dragging individual (or even small groups of) categories through deletion discussions, DRV, back to deletion discussions, back to DRV is not in the best interests of the community. If one does not already exist (I am not aware of any) there needs to be a broader discussion on the topic of whether or not "identity" based user categories belong on Wikipedia. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with you on this, Arkyan. The arguments on each side are always the same, so each decision is determined essentially by who shows up. Chick Bowen 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps an Arbcom or a Wales intervention, then?--WaltCip 20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's now how we do things (and Arbcom does not concern itself with content, even userspace content). It needs to be debated on the policy level. Chick Bowen 20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. We need to establish a consensus policy on these categories, or this will just go round 'n round forever. -- Kesh 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited DRV for Sexuality and gender identification categories. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community were given less weight as depreciated. Please note that it does not says "The consensus is..." it says "The result of the debate is..." and admins are expected to use weights of arguments when making these decisions. Finally, please note that 3 of those who expressed an opinion of keep, including the bringer of this DRV, did so for the stated purpose of social networking, which is clearly not our purpose here. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wish people wouldn't keep waving WP:NOT around like it's a magic wand. Wikipedia is not a site dedicated to social networking, but its community is a social network, and user pages and categories are used to assist in its maintenance (regardless of what they should be used for). They are popular because they give us a sense of belonging and identity separate from a hundred thousand other Wikipedia editors. Does that in itself improve the encyclopedia? No. But being a part of the "furry Wikipedians" (in this case - replace with LGBT Wikipedians, etc.) does encourage me to spend more time on Wikipedia in the first place, and that leads to improvements - at least, if I don't spend all my time arguing about the value of a community-building mechanism. GreenReaper 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, those pesky policies, always getting in the way. --Kbdank71 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. If they are getting in the way, it's not a good policy. GreenReaper 14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion for the same reasons as this UCFD discussion and this DRV discussion. Apparently, all of those and this cat have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site, no one cares what you are just how you edit, and whatever else they spewed out to delete all kinds of InsertYourOwnClassOf WikipediansHere. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people in those cats are indeed not notable, this is not a social networking site, and no, we don't care what you are. Well said. --Kbdank71 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the other hand, I happen to know a couple of people in those categories that are worthy of Featured Article status themselves if they had an article on WP, some very noteworthy activists.. the point was, if you delete one, you gotta delete them all. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's part of the problem. There are silly user categories. Nobody denies that, and few people care about their deletion. But that then leads people to say "if one user category is bad, they're all bad", but as there's no actual problem they end up justifying that with silly arguments like "could be divisive". What ever happened to "could be cohesive"? GreenReaper 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete: Two votes for deletion, one by the nominator, the other simply "per nom" with no argument at all. Five for keep (and would have been more if people had known it was up for deletion!), all with good explanations. All past precedents point to keep, including the previous deletion review. How is community consensus anything other than keep? Overturn as improperly closed, with consensus not reflected in the decision. Bushytails 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the part that said this isn't a vote? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the part that said wikipedia is built on community consensus? While not a vote, consensus (based on what the most people, with actual arguments, had to say, as well as the end result of the previous processes) clearly was for keeping the article. The only version of consensus where the article was deleted is when one admin decides he/she does not like one side, and simply ignores it. At least this time it was a mis-closure, rather than a simple random deletion like the last three times or so... Bushytails 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that since it is not a vote, I can consider the arguments of users who chose not to include bolded words in their comments, such as the analogy provided by WaltCip. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then you should also count some people's excellent replies to some of those responses, which also did not use bolded terms. Unless you decide to simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you, the community would appear to want it kept. Bushytails 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above point about over-broad generalizations that are used to justify deletion. Saying "all identity-based user categories are bad because some of them have the potential to be divisive" makes as little sense as "all articles are bad because some of them have the potential to be divisive". As a practical matter, the category concerned was used to found a WikiProject Furry, which makes the arguments about divisiveness even more confusing. GreenReaper 15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I generally don't get involved in these user category debates, but I have to wonder, do the people who have been nominating all these categories for deletion see a point in having user categories at all? I'm having trouble seeing just which user categories they ultimately want to keep. Presumably, the "Wikipedians interested in X" and "Members of WikiProject X" categories are safe, but what else? The way things are going, there won't be anything else left. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aside from issues relating to this specific category, allowing this deletion sets a very, very dangerous precedent. "As the admin, I can chose to ignore all arguments I personally disagree with" is equivalent to doing away with any semblance of building or following community consensus - simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you! Regardless of opinions on whether this category should exist, the process by which the discussion was closed can not be allowed to malfunction in this manner. Bushytails 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how would you determine consensus? Count votes? The closer needs to be able to make decisions based on strength of argument, otherwise they would be handcuffed into accepting any BS reason people could come up with. An intelligent, well-thought out argument should trump "I like it" any day of the week. --Kbdank71 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closer also has to make a decision that reflects the community. If you wish to base it on the arguments, there were intelligent arguments to keep it, and none to delete it. Even the original nominator didn't make a valid argument to delete it, just "This is another notice of self-identification category", with the suggestion we use a bloody userbox instead. Contrast this to the various well-reasoned "keep" arguments. It's not up to the closer to decide whether he/she personally agrees with the arguments, merely to make the decision that properly reflects any apparant consensus. This was clearly a keep - both by number of votes, existance of arguments, and the quite extensive precedent history - and can only be a delete by "I'll just ignore everything I don't agree with" type reasoning. One can not create consensus by ignoring everyone who disagrees with you, then claiming everyone agrees. Bushytails 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that an argument of "keep this even though it is unencyclopedic" is not well reasoned. Also, when determining the strength of arguments, please remember that policy trumps guideline, and guideline trumps essay or opinion. For example, if an admin deletes something for a WP:BLP violation presented by a single user even in a case where consensus (by vote counting) is against deletion due to WP:ILIKEIT arguments, the deletion will be stand. If users don't like policies, they need to change them, not ignore them. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you wish to quote deletion arguments not to make, "this is unencyclopedic", as claimed by the nominator, is not a valid argument, nor is "per nom", nor is an example of violating wp:point. And, last I checked, there was no policy against using categories to benefit collaboration. And, even if there were a policy, the goal here is to build the best encyclopedia possible, which often will involve ignoring all rules. Unless you can find a policy explicitly stating a useful category must be deleted, or a policy that all votes making arguments you disagree with can be ignored, "policy trumps" arguments are irrelevant, as the only policy here appears to be community consensus. Even if there were a policy, only directives from jimbo and a few select other policies can trump consensus - except for foundation issues, policies are based on established consensus, and if consensus appears to no longer agree with the policy, the policy must be disregarded as no longer applicable. Oh, and speaking of directives from jimbo... "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." - while "human beings" may not be what many people in this debate consider themselves as, that quote still applies - even if it were not for the benefits of having this category (already well-stated in all the ignored deletion votes), the lord himself hath spoketh towards the benefits of community, and the validity of related arguments. Bushytails 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sincerely interested in your opinion: Why do you feel that a category which states that a Wikipedian is a "furry", is more useful in community-building or in collaboration than a WikiProject Furry category? - jc37 15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do you think we should just have one or the other? They mean different things. That does not imply that one has value and one does not - it means they are useful for different purposes. An example: The "Furry Wikipedian" category can be used to find potential members for WP:FURRY. Conversely, I'd feel feel more comfortable contacting "Members of WikiProject Furry" with updates on WP:FURRY-specific matters, since I know they are definitely interested in editing furry articles, rather than just expressing identity. I think people often make the mistake of trying to convert one to the other because they imagine that either they mean the same thing, or that only one kind is useful, when they both have distinct purposes and uses. GreenReaper 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand that that's your perspective, but you're skirting the question. (Also wondering if Bushytails will respond.) - jc37 20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I figured GreenReaper gave a good answer, however I will answer too if you wish. Joining a wikiproject, whether this is true or not, is seen as indicating you plan on giving continual, active support, rather than just the occasional thing or two. A category of people knowledgable about a subject, on the other hand, can be joined by anyone, regardless of how much they expect to be able to contribute, thus attracting far more people. A category for the wikiproject isn't helpful - you could just add your name to the project member list (many of whom were found through the category!) - and doesn't do anything at all. There, while I know some people here will disagree, is also a communit benefit - being able to find like-minded users can do nothing but help the encyclopedia. Bushytails 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I thought I was answering the question as best I could, considering it had an assumption in it that I disagreed with! :-) You suggested that we must be supporting the identity category because we felt it was better than a category of Wikipedians who were members of a WikiProject. I believe it is possible for there to be more than one useful grouping of users, and I gave an example of why I thought that was. Saying one particular category satisfies the needs better is like saying Category:Furry comics should be discarded in favour of Category:Webcomics - neither being a subset of the other. It is possible that one of these categories would be more useful than the other, but I don't see how it matters, since the presence of one doesn't imply the other is redundant. Instead, why not have both, and gain the utility from both? GreenReaper 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. Self-identity categories do nothing to help the encyclopedia, and the deletion supported that. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What is the so-called "community building" power that this category has in order to justify its existence?--WaltCip 13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that historically, Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry was formed and expanded by contacting members of this category, and the project has continued to use the category to attract new members, as described in UCfD3 by one editor who was so found. GRBerry 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, though see also my comments in that entry and the one just below it about LGBT for additional reasons. GreenReaper 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the category does nothing to help build the encyclopedia, the deletion was correct. Burntsauce 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind deletion review is about the process of deletion... Bushytails 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, as do many of the people above , that identity categories do help, and that it is a minority group only who think otherwise--it is useful in a general as well as a specific way to see the different people interested in things; I have frequently used such categories for orientation in unfamiliar topics. DGG (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, Wikipedia is not myspace. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I maintain that the organization satisfies WP:ORG and that relevant updates to the article during the deletion discussion were not taken into consideration.

RAHB is further notable in the following respects (facts which I would propose be added to the restored article):

• 1949 - first real estate group in Ontario to introduce the Multiple Listing Service
• 1951 - first Photo Co-op System (predecessor to modern day MLS) in Canada
• 1993 - first fully constituted and duly elected ICI division in Ontario

RAHB has also received numerous awards, including some non-Realtor specific, such as:

• 2002, 2005 - Pinnacle Award from Canadian Public Relations Society

-- Robocoder (t|c) 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closing admin could have prolonged the discussion, but really the added sources (1|2) are trivial. I'm also entirely unimpressed by the "firsts" listed above. ~ trialsanderrors 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Trialsanderrors; the sources are WP:RSes either. Carlossuarez46 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I endorse the continued deletion; there is little or no notability added by the "firsts" IMHO. Accounting4Taste 03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to WP:RS, RAHB is a source that is cited/quoted in articles by third-party sources (3), including the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star, and the Financial Post.-- Robocoder (t|c) 06:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Youth Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Originally deleted at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Youth Network. Recreated (and G4 deleted) several times since then, and the notability and verifiability/reference issues from the AFD have never been dealt with. I finally reached the point of salting it yesterday. User:Rebecca then proceeded to undelete it with the comment "Invalidly deleted. The AfD had no votes at all. It pretty evidently never appeared on the AfD page." A simple "What links Here" check of the AFD shows that this is not true, the page was listed quite properly on June 25. So, instead of wheel warring with Rebecca, I'm bringing this here (as, IMHO, Rebecca should have done if she considered the AFD closure improper instead of wheel warring herself). Is the existing AFD valid or not? Does the AFD stand, or should it be overturned? In case it is not clear, I Endorse the existing AFD. TexasAndroid 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and for goodness sakes salt it this time! Either User:Rebecca knows something we don't or she really dropped the ball on this one. No notability (basically a student radio station) and not a reliable source to be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Rebecca appears to have been incorrect about the AfD's not being properly listed, I don't know that one can say that she's really "dropped the ball" here; I'm not sure that an AfD discussion of which only two editors partake can be said to have produced a consensus, such that the AfD ought perhaps in the first place to have been relisted to generate more input from the community, and consistent with that analysis, one might reasonably conclude that the article was not deleted consistent with a proper deletion discussion and thus that G4 should not apply. I can't imagine that we would do all that badly to undelete and relist at AfD in order that a fuller discussion might be had—if indeed no sources toward notability are adduced and verifiability issues are not resolved, the page could be safely salted—but I suppose Rebecca ought to have elected to bring the issue to DRV instead of to summarily overturn a months-old, previously uncontested close. Joe 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Salt per DRV rationale. This is not a valid Wikipedia article, and the user's attempts at recreating the article could be viewed as adverse to WP:COI, and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING.--WaltCip 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Article seems to establish notability and credibility.--WaltCip 13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist looking at the AFD, it seems like no one participated in it, should have been relisted for more comments. Jbeach56 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion with a dose of salt, regardless of how many participated in the original AfD, I see no reason to believe that their arguments were wrong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. It's pretty clear that the deletion debate never appeared on the AfD page and was never added to the Australian deletion sorting project to bring it to the attention of people with more knowledge of the subject matter. Had this done so, it would most likely have been referenced (by actually bringing the article to the attention of people in that state) and easily kept. This isn't a student radio station - it's one of the more significant community radio stations in the entire country. The absolute insistence on its deletion by people who have made absolutely no effort to actually work that out is bewildering. Rebecca 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's clear that the reverse is true. Here's the diff from when it was added to the Australian deletion sorting project, and here's the diff from when it was added to the AFD page. Maybe it should be revisited anyway, but TexasAndroid is correct in that procedure was followed in those respects. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's pretty clear that you did not even bother to read my DRV comments above, where I say that a simple "What Links Here" check of the AFD page shows that what seems obvious to you is actually flat out incorrect. The AFD was properly listed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 25 page. - TexasAndroid 12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I don't see an explanation why this has been closed early with essentially no participation. The reason why we run debates 5 days at a minimum is to give the community a chance to locate sources or establish with some degree of certainty that no sources exist. ~ trialsanderrors 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've added a handful of grants they've received with refs. To be fair this might be a bit of a cultural misunderstanding as student radio in the US is remarkably different than what this article refers. They also do TV and a publication as well as website. Benjiboi 06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Article overhauled. Benjiboi 11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD - There's been enough time and edits to make the original point moot. We can just relist the article, let it run the full time and get a final decision made. -- Kesh 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Additional sources have been provided, and the initial debate was not particularly robust. That said, Rebecca could have handled this a lot better. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but relist What was deleted was done so properly. What now exists ought to be sent to afd to see what say we there. As for a deletion at afd with little to no participation other than the nomiator, all I can say is there were hundreds of people commenting on that page and not a one stopped by for a saving word on this article speaks loudly especially as AFD is not a vote - so no quorum is required. Carlossuarez46 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but we run them for five days, not three. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not always, as you well know. Carlossuarez46 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but lack of participation is certainly no reason to cut a discussion short prematurely, as you should well know. ~ trialsanderrors 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. The first afd was a mockery of community work. In such cases normal wikipedians relist for more opinions, and the closing admin must be instructed of better practices. And the current shape of the article shows that it will easily survive AfD. Mukadderat 04:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. But it doesn't surprise me one bit that yet another perfectly notable article is up for deletion. SYN is hosted at RMIT, they have a very nice studio located at the RMIT University city campus and are no doubt the largest of the RMIT Student Union Media Colletives. They are a full-time licensed community radio station in Melbourne. I'm not sure what an organisation has to do to *be* notable these days. Kyelewis 11:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Article is notable and full of sources. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Kyelewis and Allstarecho. --AndrewHowse 21:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn since, apparently, there are or were sources aplenty to support this article. Burntsauce 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Public domain photo of an extremely common Vietnam era medal, verified with the National Personnel Records Center as a common image ineligable for copyright. Deleted in a massive purge, by a single admin, of all images uploaded by User:Husnock. Image was not a copyright violation, deletion reason was never discussed, and should be overturned -OberRanks 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Husnock is notoriously unreliable in his claims for image sourcing. He never provided a specific source, merely "from internet". No reason to believe that this is indeed in the public domain. GRBerry 17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion as a blatant copyvio. This was a photograph of a 1960's war medal. The source was not specified, only that it was found on the Internet. Even if the medal itself is in the public domain, somebody photographed it, and their photograph is protected by copyright. I should add that I was not the only admin deleting problematic Husnock images; that the situation was discussed extensively at several places first (including here and here; and that I have left dozens of appropriate images uploaded by Husnock intact and even corrected faulty license tags so those images would not be deleted by others. -- But|seriously|folks  17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, images without source information go, period. This is necessary for protection from legal liability along with other concerns. Of course, no objection to a reupload if someone finds that this image is unquestionably in the public domain and can demonstrate that, but that's why a source is required—without that, it can't be checked out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion we are not a free image hosting service, especially when the copyright is questionable. Burntsauce 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Auschappoint.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Auschappoint.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Government public domain copy of an SS service record document was deleted in a massive purge, by a single admin, of all images uploaded by User:Husnock. Image was not a copyright violation, deletion reason was never discussed, and should be overturned -OberRanks 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as the image meets WP:PDI or it is clearly - as you say - government public domain, endorse recreation.--WaltCip 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Husnock, who is not a reliable source, claimed "Released from S.S. Personnel Service Record, on file with the National Archives and Records Administration". The image was definitely not in that record, it is an image of a page in the record. Husnock did not claim that he made the image, nor that NARA made it. So we have no reason to believe that this is in the public domain. It might be, it might not be, but without sourcing, we can't claim that it is. GRBerry 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Endorse my deletion as a blatant copyvio. To my knowledge, German government documents are not public domain. US government documents are, but only because of a statutory provision which is specific to US government documents. Even if this image is a US government copy of an original German government document, there is still the underlying German government copyright. I should add that I was not the only admin deleting problematic Husnock images; that the situation was discussed extensively at several places first (including here and here; and that I have left dozens of appropriate images intact and even corrected faulty license tags so those images would not be deleted by others. -- But|seriously|folks  17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I read somewhere that pre-WWII German gov documents are now in the public domain. This should be verified, though. Tizio 17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SS records are kept in College Park on microfilm by the U.S. National Archives. When a researcher goes there, they pay 50 cents a copy for the photocopy of the microfilm. The copies of the record then becomes the property of the researcher. There are no rules about what they can do with them and researchers can use them in books, articles, research papers, anything. The German government isnt even involved and there should be no restrictions about having such images here. This is why I think it should be undeleted. -OberRanks 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts that researchers can obtain a copy and that you are unaware of any restrictions do not suggest that the image is free from copyright. -- But|seriously|folks  18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would we need to verify this? A letter from College Park saying its so? An e-mail from a NARA employee? I can probably get either (But after m Wiki-Break I just started! HA!)

Neither. A citation to a law providing that German governmental documents (or at least certain ones) are not protected by copyright is what we need. -- But|seriously|folks  19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is definitely true that 'certain German governmental documents are not protected by copyright'. Not sure if this is one of them though. See the German Wikipedia copyright page and relevant law. My German is more than a little rusty (and not focused on legalese to begin with), but basically I think these are saying that government documents meant for public consumption (new laws, announcements, et cetera) are not subject to copyright. This is also an odd case as these are presumably documents seized by the U.S. during the war... essentially the U.S. government 'took ownership' of them and the Germans don't seem to be objecting (there was that whole thing where they surrendered), so are they still German government property or are they U.S. government documents now? Copyright law gives me a headache.--CBD 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The debate above is irrelevant. The source has not been established; without it, there's no way to establish the legitimacy of the document or its copyright status. If someone can upload a new one with a clear source and make clear that it's genuinely in the public domain, fine. Chick Bowen 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE CHOSEN - An Avant Garde Film of Omniview Perspective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

1. Deletion happened 20 minutes prior to the proposed Oct 15, 2007 20:15 while the improving was still going on;

2. "General Comprehension" if a very questionable term as for Wikipedia as envisioned. Simply answer my question: to what educational level is the Wikipedia for? As we know a lot of people in my circle visit this post to see the progress. They are researchers, professors, people in the TV/movie industries, media artist, VC funds, graduate students. While they have no problem understanding what's going on, how come it is incomprehensible? We agree to improve and use plain text to educate the much extensive public however that also demands time and solid data e.g. feedback from multiple screenings, production news and the related, similar projects that are on-going. For example, the Real-D cinema has the same streamhead with immersive/interactive cinema and you Wikipedia already has an entry for its commercial implementation "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Digital_3-D". Does it exist only because it has a BIGGER name - "Disney"?

3. Don't take offense that it is true that you editors are not almighty to understand everything. You are only experts in your field. When it is not comprehensive to YOU, think twice before categorize it to be "Generally Incomprehensible" to others. Otherwise, Wikipedia, not YOU, would be laughed at and no real informative entries will be posted sooner or later because some small group people don't understand them.

4. This article is an intro on the most recent methodology and production of interactive and immersive film. We are still working on the improvement to make it much easier to the more general public. So, please restore it and allow us longer time to make an entry useful for people who need to know more about this domain and its forefront. Yuechuan Ke 06:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. Blatant advertising, egregious conflict of interest. (Or, if you're into wikilawyering, autorestore as a contested prod and immediately speedy.) —Cryptic 06:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep deleted, blatant advertisement for the user's own film studio/movie-making technique/film. Resurgent insurgent 07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted technically, any contested prod should be undeleted by policy, but this particular article is so hopelessly spammy that it wouldn't last 5 minutes before being deleted again. Appearantly the author didn't bother to look at any other wikipedia movie articles first. It also isn't on the IMDB (there is a 2007 short called The Chosen, but that looks to be something different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted or redelete per WP:CSD#G11 - Conflict of interest as a result of the creator's desire to push his own agenda on Wikipedia. In earnest, I would suggest that you advertise your project on somewhere other than in Wikipedia, much less the mainspace.--WaltCip 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, all of those copyright claims make this inappropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of the spamminess of the wording. Corvus cornix 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, not only blatant spam, but also a G12 candidate (the previous article contained an all-rights-reserved copyright notice, for those unable to view it). Material not intended to be released under the GFDL is inappropriate, regardless of any other consideration. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as contested PROD, followed by immediate Delete under CSD-G11. So, to make things simple, Keep Deleted SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion another good reason that expired prods should not automatically be restored when belatedly contested. I read it twice and still don't know what this film is about. Carlossuarez46 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and lesbian retirement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A messy article is not a reason to delete. It is notable, and over the course of the AfD, sources and references were added and the article cleaned up, which obviously can't be seen now as it's been deleted and Google's cache has the old version. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and lesbian retirement for the numerous media sources found and that were being added when the AfD was live. It should not have been deleted. Instead, it should have been tagged ((verify)) and ((cleanup)). -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prejudice to re-creation. If you want a user copy of the page to clean-up and repost, just leave me a message. Do make a serious effort to clean it up if you're going to do this; don't just do an end-run around this review. Not that I'm implying anything, I just though I would mention it for completeness sake. I trust users will be responsible with the deleted versions I give you. --Haemo 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:Haemo, who expresses the same sentiment that I did when closing the AfD. Although a long list of external links were added over the course of the AfD, no effort was made to actually improve the article. If you want to recreate a quality form of the article, please do so, but there was nothing of redeeming value in the prose within the article, which continued to be written as an essay full of vague platitudes. As even when the article was in the spotlight no one was making an effort to make it worthwhile to keep (simply adding news references does not improve the quality of an essay), I am skeptical that anyone would even bother with rewriting the article were it restored. —Verrai 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I thought I had more time to do work on improving the article and indeed had started the process as soon as I was aware of the AfD. My goal was to save it from deletion and proving it was a notable subject with sources available was the first step. My understanding per WP:AfD is that if an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. I'm also unsure how long AfD's go for although many seem rather endless so maybe I'm just missing that information. Benjiboi 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Benji. That's why I said it should have been tagged with verify and cleanup, not deleted or even put up for AfD. However, since the AfD was placed, the AfD should have been closed as No Consensus based on the arguments presented. I know we don't "vote" on here but I never have been one to call a rose by any other name and the No Consensus was plain. It makes me wonder if anyone that puts an article up for AfD actually does some research on the subject of an article before putting it up for AfD. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly agree, I've seen the AfD process continually abused and speaking for myself feel it's extremely stressful to rush job improving an article to satisfy an audience that seems determined to eliminate information; all rather counter-intuitive to finding information on wikipedia. Benjiboi 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-create The closing admin specifically pointed out that there was no prejudice against re-creation in a better form. Sounds like there's no reason not to do it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article simply needed editing as it was and AfD should not have even been started then why shouldn't the article simply be reinstated? Why should the article start from scratch without it's history and work done up to this point? Benjiboi 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Put it this way: if you're working from what was there, the article you're creating will also be an essay. You would be better off starting from scratch. All of the relevant links are in the AfD. —Verrai 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree. Bad faith assumption that an editor wouldn't be able to rework an essay, even though I don't think it was one, into an article, the links were formatted into refs and additional content was also added including edits to the text so it was already in process of being "de-essayified". Benjiboi 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, the previous version was a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. If you want to rewrite it to be an encyclopedia article, then go ahead, but you should write it from scratch. Corvus cornix 18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why references, and other content besides the problematic essay-like portions should not be available. Benjiboi 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn ridiculous when people put so much work into an article to bring it up to standard and it gets wiped out with nothing more than "feel free to re-create it". Total bullshit. >:o[] PLEASE userfy the info to my userspace so we can finish the work on it and recreate it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what was in the article that made it an encyclopedia article? The version that I see in the cache above, is not an article. That's why the deletion endorsement and the suggestion to rewrite. Corvus cornix 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, the version that's in the cache had been expanded greatly and improved. Benjiboi 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. Article could have been improved therefore should have never been nommed for AfD, a quick google search would have easily verified that. AfD discussion spelled out that plenty of refs had been found to assert notability of subject and work had already begun to address concerns. Overturn as no consensus and let's get on with writing an article or two. Benjiboi 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating an essay with a lot of perhaps valid references (and I didn't see the point in checking the references since the article itself is unredeemable) is not what Wikipedia is all about. Now go read those refrerences and produce an encyclopedia article. Or else find a place where your own personal opinions and original research are welcome. Corvus cornix 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Civility please, I accept that the article needed work and work was indeed being done on it. Strongly disagree that the article is unredeemable as, in fact, will be shown whenever and however we can get the article back on track from deletion. The fact that we had added a dozen references to the article should be plenty indication that the article subject is encyclopedic despite perceived WP:OR issues. Again, article should be improved through regular editing. Benjiboi 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize, my comments above were not meant as in "go away", they were intended to mean "find a website where that sort of information would fit in.. Corvus cornix 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've userfied the page at User:Allstarecho/gay and lesbian retirement. Again, I repeat my comments above. --Haemo 21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still seems like it was a hasty or badly done deletion. A day wasted arguing over re-instating that could have been spent working on the article. I don't expect an apology or any recognition of that, but it would be nice to know that, as stated above, if an article can be improved (ie, has verifiable sources and is notable), it won't be deleted outright, causing delays in improving it to higher standards. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - clearly no consensus whatsoever to delete. Admin substituted his judgment for the community's. Otto4711 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I'm not going to second-guess the closing and deletion, per my own policy, I am glad the article was userfied. Bearian 20:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - It's an encyclopedic topic that had a messy article. There wasn't at all a clear consensus to delete in this AfD. --Oakshade 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If you want a non-essay version of this article, go write one! ((sofixit)) Burntsauce 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot Geez, all this energy spent trying to overturn bad article's deletion? Just rewrite it. Fireplace 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently you missed the part where it was userfied and is in the process of being re-written before before being recreated? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I only recently realized that this had been deleted - it wasn't even on my list of monitored articles until I accidentally typoed from the more famous Rihanna, but per policy this young former popstar, whose article was speedy deleted having existed in its factually correct form for eighteen months, warrants an article. I just wanted to bring it here before doing anything rash.

Please note that the final, cleanest version of the page is the "Revision as of 23:39, September 24, 2007", and any further restorations would warrant immediate reversion back to this revision of the article. Bobo. 00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn lazy A7 deletion... claims of importance included charting album in 2 countries and "signed a major deal with Sony music aged 18". Probably meets WP:MUSIC, clearly doesn't meet WP:CSD#A7. --W.marsh 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, a #18 US single. Should probably just speedy overturn this... --W.marsh 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]