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

AfD claims Kēlen is "something made up in school one day".

However:

• a) Kēlen was developed over years;
• b) Kēlen is well-respected and known within the conlanging community;
• c) Kēlen was featured in a specific talk at the 2nd Language Creation Conference, establishing notability among other things; and
• d) the AfD was closed after one day, apparently by editors and an administrator with no knowledge of the subject whatsoever, did not qualify as a speedy delete, and did not receive proper editorial review.

Therefore, I request that the article be undeleted; failing that, that a speedy unclose of the AfD to discuss both the substance and manner of the AfD. Either way, I also request a temporary undeletion of the article so that editors can see what it is they are discussing. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to this point no one has given a source of any sort. Here is the only link in the original article. Can you point out anything toward notability? CitiCat ^♫ 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Only one source given, and it doesn't establish notability. Even though it seems to be the site of the creator of the language, it doesn't mention any of the things above at first look. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See here and here for information on Kēlen from the CONLANG mailing list (the primary forum on this topic). Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist does not qualify for speedy delete or the letter of WP:NOT#SCHOOL (though it may meet the spirit of the latter). Should be relisted for a full five days of discussion. The points above are certainly assertions of notability and if sourced may be enough to save the article from deletion. Eluchil404 22:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete. At one point there were at least two references in the article, IIRC; I'm not sure what happened to the other one, the proceedings of the second Language Creation Conference, between the last time I looked at the article and the time it was deleted; but with that added back it should be fine. (Apparently the LCC2 website is having problems today but it should be back up soon enough.) --Jim Henry 23:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, closed too early. Stifle (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist to ensure proper discussion. I'd undelete it myself, but I was part of the CONLANG list and the conlang community for years, so I can't/shouldn't. Kēlen does not qualify for WP:NOT#SCHOOL in any way, and a deletion discussion should be open for at least several days so that editors can assess the evidence. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist AfD was open for less than one day [1]. The deletion process requires five days before taking action [2]. — Ksero 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article for the young adult fantasy novel “Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc” was speedy deleted based on notability issues. However, the novel is published by a legitimate publisher, Avari Press, and is the first in a series of books. It is available from all major bookstores, wholesalers, and distributors nationwide. The article provided information pertaining to the novel, including a plot synopsis, character/race/location information, as well as the appropriate publication details. In addition, the article received contributions by administrators of the Fantasy task force of the Novels WikiProject who gave no complaints concerning the article’s content or notability. Fan of fantasy 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion From looking at the article, there are no sources cited - thus, no sources to back up the assertion of notability. That's enough to fail the general notability guidelines. If it were to be restored, it would need to be cleaned up to meet WP:N and WP:PLOT. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 16:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion (from deleting admin) Advertorial article on the first book of an ambitious but non-notable young author (Matthew R. Milson, also deleted]]) published by a vanity press on October 15 of this year. Milson has been shopping Young Arcan around since January 2006 and while I wish him the best of luck, Wikipedia is not a proper venue for advertising new fictional works. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at afd Books can not be deleted at speedy as non-notable. If people want to change WP:CSD they should discuss changing it. I think the article can go pretty quickly, but it is still wrong to list them there. I've seen some prize-winning childrens novels listed there because the prize wasn't in the article and neither the nom or the admin realised it. It takes more than two people to do creative works properly--no two individuals know enough between them. Not even if I'm one of them--far from it--anything that might need any special recognition needs a general view. DGG (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll happily concede that speedy deletion didn't fall within the letter of the law, but given the overwhelming precedent to delete vanity-published books at afd - I can recall only one case where such an article was kept, and dozens where it was not - this deletion review should be sufficient. My main concern is that this glorified advertisement, admittedly written by the book's author, is not mirrored and kept in perpetuity, like the glorified advertisement for its publisher, Avari Press (AfD discussion), is. [3]. (Endorse, if that's somehow unclear.) —Cryptic 23:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I tagged it because my checks suggested that the publisher was a vanity press--apologies if that isn't true. On the subject of the novel, perhaps we can wait until we have some reviews by reliable sources. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The article was speedied citing WP:CSD#A7. However, as WP:CSD says, "There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion". This should either have been prodded or AfD'd — Ksero 02:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, blatant advertising for a vanity publication, correctly deleted - do we really need to policy wonk over what CSD criteria it was actually deleted under? Neil ☎ 10:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Avari Press is not a vanity publisher. A vanity publisher by definition is "a printing house that specializes in publishing books for which the authors pay all or most of the costs." The author at no point in time paid any amount of money to have his novel published. It is in my opinion that simply because someone did not recognize the name, they assumed it was a vanity press. I would have thought that a little more research would have gone in by the administrators before making such an arrogant assumption. Furthermore, the article simply provided plot synopsis and character definitions as does several other Wikipedia articles concerning novels. I do not understand how this can qualify as "blatant advertising". Fan of Fantasy
  • Googling reveals various accusations of Avari being a vanity publisher, but I'm not sure how one would go about determining for sure whether or not that was the case. --Stormie 00:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural overturn and list at AFD. Books aren't currently a valid option for A7 and I'm not convinced this was ad-spam. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list - CSD A7 doesn't apply to books and none of the other speedies apply. There appears to be no reliable source information for this topic, but listing at AfD is important so people don't feel like they are being screwed. Also, there is the chance that those at AfD will come up with off beat reliable source information for the book. -- Jreferee t/c 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly overturn and list I view it like this: an article on a person whose only claim to fame was a book published by an obvious vanity publisher would probably be correctly deleted under db-bio, and deleting what is essentially a sub-page about their book as well would fall within the spirit of that deletion. However, in this case it's not obvious that Avari Press is a vanity publishing house (they certainly don't have the usual "our prices start at just $xxx" on their website), and I don't think that db-bio should be applied to non-vanity published authors or their works - having a book published by anything resembling a proper publishing house should be seen as at least a claim of notability. Having said that, I see little chance of this being kept at afd. [4] Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kay.K.BayZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON KayKBayZ 13:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Hmm...no reason for undeletion. Just by looking at the title I can tell it doesn't belong here. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Does the nominating user intend to add a reason? If not, then close this thing please. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God (LA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was a stub on, now disbanded, metal band Fear of God. They satisfy Notability (music) guideline (#5 criteria) since they had released two albums on Warner Brothers label, one on Pavement Music label, and one on Metal Blade label (as Détente).[5] -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I hate one-line-of-prose-plus-maybe-a-stray-list band substubs as much as the next guy, but multiple non-self-published albums are a definite and easily-verified assertion of significance. This article's problems were not ones best fixed by speedy deletion. —Cryptic 11:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion Passes the notability guidelines for bands with an album released on a pretty well-known label. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be in favour of overturning the deletion. With four albums, two released on a major label, I'd say it satisfies the criteria nicely. And I agree with Cryptic, the article's "notability issue" would have been better off being solved by a deletion debate, rather than a speedy tag. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and send to AFD for discussion. Multiple album releases exempt the article from speedying; other issues can be hashed out at AFD. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Content was correctly assessed by deleting admin. If an article is deleted per A7 and you think you have info that asserts notability, ask the deleting admin to userfy or simply write a new article that includes the info and ask the admin to restore the edit history. ~ trialsanderrors 18:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The Wikipedia article itself needs to assert importance/significance. Many bands have five self published records. There was no label information provided in the article, nor was there any indication that any of the records were even sold. The entire information conveyed by the deleted aricle was "they were a metal band, previously known by a different name, who had a female vocalist, who died. Here are five record names." Importance/significance is not conveyed by such information to get past CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 00:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Article was deleted ten minutes after I created it, and while I was still in process of editing it. -- Vision Thing -- 07:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VampireFreaks.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was speedied on account of AFD from 2005. Does not take into account any increase in notability over the last two years, which I believe makes it notable enough for inclusion. Zazaban 03:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - Find some third-party sources, and claim to notability thereof. Then, userfy the cached version of the page, improve it for encyclopedic standard, and then submit it to DRV. As it stands, the article is not exactly encyclopedic nor neutral.--WaltCip 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care for the currrent version myself. I was the one who put a POV tag on it. It needs a lot of work, but isn't that what a wiki is for? Zazaban 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Two years is a long time...the old article would probably need a ton of updating. However, this website is one of the most trafficked sites on the internet per alexa (higher ranked than eHarmony). As long as it's sourced and neutral, I don't see any reason to not have an article about one of the Internet's more trafficked pages...particularly a unique one like this. Again, though, it must be sourced and show notability. Smashville 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It isn't salted, so endorse deletion and just write a new article. Go ahead and recreate the article if you have reliable sources indicating notability. --Coredesat 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the 2007 version was much different than the 2005 version deleted by VFD... G4 didn't really apply. --W.marsh 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely overturn. Someone with access to the various deleted versions will need to make a more thorough appraisal, but the two year gap between AFD and CSD deletion makes me question whether this was a valid G4. If there's still a question about notability, ship it back to AFD; it had at least some support during 2005. If there really are more sources available now, the article should be able to stand up for itself. Serpent's Choice 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation. If someone is willing to write a article in a neutral tone, then go ahead. Otherwise, the last version (before deletion) belongs in the wastebasket. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting an article due to a suspected POV problem is pretty extreme... there's an "edit" button for a reason. --W.marsh 03:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, but don't restore the old version. If someone is willing to write it from scratch, let them. ~ Sebi _[talk] 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - the original deleted article was not even about the same subject, it really did not discuss the website vampirefreaks.com at all, it was about a court case that involved the website, and the delete votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vampirefreaks called for its deletion on those grounds. The recently deleted article is completely different and certainly contains enough assertion of notability (over 1,000,000 members, 450,000 of them active?) that it deserves an AfD discussion. --Stormie 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice to someone writing a properly-sourced version. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation with sources - There is a ton of reliable source material for the topic going back to at least June 2003. I'm not sure what the point of this DRV is. If you are asking for permission to create an unsourced VampireFreaks.com, the answer is no. If you are asking for permission to create a sourced VampireFreaks.com, this seems like something you could have done in advance of this DRV request. -- Jreferee t/c 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I figure it's a waste to just delete the content we already have. Desides, I suck at editing, if anyone does it, it won't be me. I figure we can just bring back the old page and source/fix it. Zazaban 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|CfD)

Note Category:American entrepreneurs was Merge into Category:American businesspeople by the CfD being reviewed at this DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Useful, encyclopedic, important, distinct, well-populated category was hastily deleted Wikidemo 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Overturn (comment by nominator). There is a clear difference between a "businessperson" or an "businessman", and an "entrepreneur", in American English and business culture. It's a useful distinction that many erudite people make and are interested in; hence it is encyclopedic. Before the deletion/merge we had more than 600 people in the category. The deletion discussion was very brief with little participation, and in my opinion missed the point. We have one article for Business and another from Entrepreneurship, so we obviously recognize the difference as notable. There are books, articles, papers, academic departments, etc., on entrepreneurship, often within larger business-oriented organizations. For example, the New York Times has a "business" section but also a topic on entrepreneurship. [6]. Harvard Business School teaches business, but has a program and department in entrepreneurship [7]. There are tens of thousands of essays, articles, books, etc., on the difference. I could find find better references but here are some quick ones - [8] [9] [10] [11]. If the category distinction is good enough for the New York Times and Harvard Business School, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. In brief, a businessman is someone who runs or manages a business operation ([12]), whereas an entrepreneur is someone who starts a new enterprise, product, service, or the like, through their own efforts and capital, outside of the confines of a large structured organization ([13], [14], [15]). Most (but not all) entrepreneurs are businesspeople; most businesspeople are not entrepreneurs. I think we should restore the category and reverse the category changes. I have no opinion on the category deletions for other countries, however; the usage of the word "entrepreneur" is different in American versus British English, and most countries (and even most sectors of the US) do not have a comparable culture of entrepreneurship.Wikidemo 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we should also overturn and restore Category:Entrepreneurs on similar grounds. That deletion discussion was here. Wikidemo 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, CFD was valid and unanimous. --Coredesat 19:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse rename. CFD was indeed valid and unanimous. It ran from Oct 13 to Oct 19, not hasty in any sense of the word. By the way, you might want to notify the closing admin of this DRV nomination. --Kbdank71 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the reminder. Wikidemo 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)...Wait a minute. You *are* the closing administrator, right? My objection is not procedural, that's fine and you made the fair decision in light of the discusison. Rather, I think the result is clearly wrong in the context of the American entrepreneurial business subculture, which draws a sharp line between those businesspeople who are entrepreneurs and those who are not. Perhaps people responded without thinking this through - I haven't seen a comment in the original discussion or so far here that reaches the underlying issue. I can still inform you of the debate if you wish :) -- Wikidemo 07:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I was just trying to inject some humor.  :) --Kbdank71 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You succeeded. Thanks, and sorry that I forgot to notify you. If only we could all be so sporting about deletions. Wikidemo 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I look at it this way: I'll give my opinion on just about anything, but at the end of the day, if consensus doesn't go my way, the earth will keep on spinning. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, on wikipedia that requires getting that worked up about. If we're not having fun doing this, it's time to quit. --Kbdank71 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion/renaming. The trouble with Wikipedia is, it doesn't have any unambiguous meaning for entrepreneur, to parody something somebody didn't actually say. Sam Blacketer 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or permit renaming (somewhat pointless as of now, due to the cats being depopulated) to Category:Business founders or something if unambiguity is required. There is a clear distinction between people who merely work in business and people who found businesses. (In fact, the skillsets and interests are often incompatible.) When Steve Preston was made Small Business Administration head, small businessmen (entrepreneurs) were concerned that he had never started a business, merely worked for one. There is a difference. Category:Businesspeople is horrendously overpopulated at all levels and has too little breakdown by industry, and far less by role. This deletion didn't help matters. --Dhartung | Talk 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is this CFD take two. --Kbdank71 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll say what I think about the outcome. It was ill-informed and wrong. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet you chose to equate businessmen and entrepreneurs in your argument to overturn (small businessmen (entrepreneurs)). --Kbdank71 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no reasonable claim that businesspeople and entrepreneurs are the same thing. The question as I understand it is whether having a sub-category here for entrepreneurs is helpful. I think so, and suspect that the 600+ Wikipedians who added that category to articles thought so too. If I'm sifting through a list of entrepreneurs, I want to find people who started new businesses, not the CFO of Enron or the head of a bank.Wikidemo 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't want to get testy or presume bad faith, but I sometimes wonder if people even read the newspaper. Entrepreneurs are a subset of businesspeople. Primarily, they are small business owners, unless they are lucky, in which case they are large business owners. The key difference is whether their own money is invested in the business. Lee Iacocca is not an entrepreneur, he was a hired gun, and a very good one. John DeLorean had the same career path as Iacocca until a point, when he struck out on his own and founded a company with his own money (and that of others). He was an entrepreneur. There are thousands of notable businesspeople who are not in any conceivable form entrepreneurs. But all entrepreneurs are, of course, businesspeople. Business founder (as I proposed above) is a near-match, but really it is possible to take over a business and still be an entrepreneur. People who are hired to run a business at any level, however, are not entrepreneurs. They may accumulate a stock investment in a company but they have not underwritten the business themselves. At the other end of the scale are investors who may have an ownership interest in a company but are not in a management role. All are essential roles, yet all are distinct within the larger class of businesspeople, just as are engineers, managers, secretaries, or accountants. Put it another way: businessmen who fail get fired; entrepreneurs who fail go bankrupt. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read the newspaper, but more importantly, I check the dictionary. Entrepreneur: a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, esp. a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk. Which correlates with what you just said: "But all entrepreneurs are, of course, businesspeople." Now, if we had merged businesspeople into entrepreneurs, I can see the reasoning for overturning. But the merge was entrepreneurs into businesspeople. Lee Iacocca has not been moved into entrepreneurs, because he isn't one. But seeing as all entrepreneurs are businesspeople, then the merge made sense. Your comments seem to argue in favor of endorsing the merge, not opposing it. --Kbdank71 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I have only said that it is a subset, i.e. a subcategory. We do not merge up all subcategories simply because there is a parent category into which they may be merged. Please do not engage in this misconstruction of my words; I am losing my ability to take your arguments in good faith. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The CFD was unanimous, and unanimously wrong. Sometimes we blow it and we need to fix it when we do, and DRV is in part a venue for doing so. A new argument is given above, namely that these really are different categorizations, reflecting different roles and different fields of study. That argument is sufficient reason to overturn the close as it relates to this category. I don't know if the other nationalities also need to be separately distinguished, not knowing the literature for them. Relisting at editorial discretion, but that old AFD certainly should be overturned as just plain wrong. GRBerry 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close/permit recreation - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. However, businesspeople and entrepreneurs are not the same thing. An entrepreneur includes one who assumes the financial risk of starting and operating a business venture and includes "An innovator of business enterprise who recognizes opportunities to introduce a new product, a new process or an improved organization, and who raises the necessary money, assembles the factors for production and organizes an operation to exploit the opportunity".[16] The the category American entrepreneurs would take its meaning from the Entrepreneur. The Entrepreneur should be footnoted to provide an accepted main meaning of entrepreneur in Wikipedia's Entrepreneur article that would make clear what an Entrepreneur is for purposes of the American entrepreneurs category. Permission to recreate the American entrepreneurs category on the condition that the category itself includes a clear membership criteria. -- Jreferee t/c 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the category should have clear criteria for inclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The category was correctly evaluated as difficult to categorize correctly.--Mike Selinker 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]