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

I am writing this in regards to the continuous deletes this article gets from numerous Administrators. There seems to be a trend with this article where many of the admins do not read on the history of the article or the resolutions made with discrepancies in the past. I am neither messaged about potential issues, by way of Wikipedia or email which is active. I in turn get hasty deletes for issues that have already been remedied by previous admins. Case in Point, First deletion was made by User:Pedro for a redirect issue. I contacted Pedro immediately to rectify this. Once it was corrected the article was allowed to be active. Next deletion was by User:Jerryfor the same issue. I contacted Jerry to inform him that this issue was rectified working with Pedro and he also informed me of a potential notability issue. I conveyed to him that this same issue was brought up in Nov 2007 and my changes were accepted by the admin at that time. He then allowed the article to be active. Then the article was deleted by User:Discospinster or I should say moved to my user sub page due to a notability issue. I worked with him to rectify the issues and over numerous discussions to make sure the sources were valid he allowed me to move the article back to the original name place. At 23:13 on March 17th I receive a speedy deletion message for a G4 violation (which was rectified by Discospinster) by User:Kesh. 4 min later I had the article deleted by User:Toddst1 for a A7 violation. Upon questioning his reason for delete after providing him significant proof that the A7 violation was not valid in this case, He responded in a condescending manner. In just I responded accordingly. I then received another delete, and I am not sure why or how, by User:Jmlk17 for a G1: (Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) violation. I have questioned him on this delete and he did respond and asked me kindly if I would like the article to be moved to my sandbox for further editing.

I have done all that has been asked of me, added numerous sources from many different publications to satisfy any admin that has had an issue with it, Changed any redirect issue affiliated with the article etc. This has become a daily chore for something that should not be. If the article cannot be found for debate I can post it If allowed under my user sub page. Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Boey and closed without much discussion as Delete. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Text can be found at User:Succisa75/Sandbox --Calton | Talk 04:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed DRV request -- Kesh (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse article space deletion, Overturn user space deletion - At the time I tagged the article, it had been rewritten but I felt did not significantly fix the problems it was originally sent to User space for. Namely, the article still read as more of a resumé than an encyclopedic article. I am not sure why the User space version was deleted, especially as G1 was an improper reasoning. There are valid notability concerns, but I'm not sure that avenue has been exhausted yet, and Succisa75 deserves a chance to find more sources in his/her sandbox version. -- Kesh (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse article space deletion as one of the several deletors. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Jerry's assessment (below) that the user does not seem to have the facts straight. My observation is that the user has been disruptive with recreating an article that was deleted for good reasons. I believe it is a borderline notable autobiography and WP:SALT is in order to prevent further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The requester does not seem to have the facts straight. The only times it was deleted "because of a redirect thing" was as a normal part of userfying the article. This is always done when a mainspace article is userfied. What really happened is below:

On 26 October 2007, User:W.marsh deleted Daniel Boey ‎per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Boey. On 12 November 2007 the same admin userfied it to User:Succisa75/Daniel Boey, at the user's request. The contents of the article were subsequently inappropriately recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements), without a deletion review or administrator consultation. On 13 March 2008, User:Discospinster re-userfied it, and stated that it was determined not to be a notable subject per the AfD. User:Pedro merely deleted the resulting cross-namespace redirect, because Discospinster accidentally left it there. The contents of the article were again subsequently inappropriately recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements), without a deletion review or administrator consultation. On 15 March 2008, User:Jerry (that's me!) deleted "Daniel Boey" citing WP:CSD#G4, recreation of content deleted at XfD, and Protected it. Also on 15 March 2008, Jerry (still me!) deleted Daniel boey as an apparent attempt by the author (this requester) to evade the protection. I protected that title as well. On 16 March 2008 Discospinster unprotected it, stating that the author had added better references. The contents of the article were subsequently recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements). On 17 March 2008, User:Toddst1 deleted it citing WP:CSD#A7 (group); Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance. The contents of the article were again subsequently inappropriately recreated in mainspace by a cut-and-paste method, (instead of moving, contrary to GFDL requirements), without a deletion review or administrator consultation. On 18 March 2008, User:Jmlk17 deleted it citing WP:CSD#G1; Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible. (This was likely an error, as it was probably intended to be another G4 deletion.) JMLK17 also protected it.

I say that the problem was that when Discospinster reviewed the article, if the determinations was made that it would likely pass an AfD, then Discospinster should have cross-namespace moved it, and made a comment in the edit summary to that effect, as well as making the usual talk page oldafdfull with a comment about it being improved. Had that happened, we would probably not be here discussing it. We may well be at AfD2, but that's another story.

If Discospinster was not confident enough to do that, then it should have been deferred to WP:DRV for a review. Having said that, I do not think the article has sufficient context for natability in V RS to support its N, so I think we should endorse deletion and it should remain userfied and the author should be advised to continue to try to improve it, and take it up at DRV when it is ready. Until then, we should WP:SALT the page to prevent further cut-and-past recreations. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry, Just to clarify, Wmarsh did approve of the additional sources that I added to the article and did allow the article to be created. From my recollection, I believe the "copy and paste" was an error on my part due to not understanding how to move a page over correctly.

Also in terms of notability, what more are you looking for? if needed I can email you the revised article with the additional resources for you to look over.

To all the admins here, I know that to contact every writer of each article might be what you call daunting, but I feel issues such as this could have been rectified by someone messaging me by either wiki or email prior to the delete. As you have all witnessed I do respond rather quickly to resolve any issue that might arouse. I feel the allowance of speedy deletion for numerous reasons has caused some to abuse that privilege.Succisa75 (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually alot easier than you seem to think. Just put the article back to your userspace, improve it if it needs it, then come to DRV and request a review. If the result of the review is to mainspacify it, then you are home free. If not, you will receive good feedback on what more you need to do. Your userspace version got deleted because you blanked it and requested deletion after a cut-n-paste move. As far as daunting... I replied to your emails, didn't I? We are not too lazy to reply to you... your user talk page has evidence that several people have been telling you about the notability concerns with this article in all versions to date. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Jerry you did reply to my emails, and were helpful. I never once used the word lazy in any of my complaints. Lack of research, yes, and the repeat deletions for the same thing steer me to that conclusion. Especially when not one but two admins approved of the changes they requested, (Wmarch in 2007 and discospinster as of recent). How could I have have the article active without it?

I cannot recreate the article in my userspace because a deletion has been done User:MZMcBride.

Also, There has not been an article for deletion discussion about this article post 2007. All there have been is speedy deletes and discussions there after.

I blanked my userspace version and requested deletion so I would not have an issue with the redirect. Was this an appropriate move on my part? Probably not, but I did not understand where and how the redirect issue came about, so as a novice editor here on Wiki I tried to rectify it with the limited know how I had.

Last, to address the notability issues that some admins might have had with this article, if one admin approves an article and others disagree on the notability issues, or feel it might need more wouldn't you think it would be fair that more detailed reasoning be given as to what amendments need to be made than just simply saying notability concerns? How is one able to fix an article where such vague feedback? Succisa75 (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The user has brought up that certain admins have approved the article. That's not how it works. No admin has the authority to "approve" an article. Any comments that an admin might make to the user that an article has become "better" or meets with their approval is their personal approval and does not imply any administrative approval. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin does not have administrative "approval" of an article, how can he or she delete an article then move it back to the mainspace once it meets their criteria? Succisa75 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The sequence of admin actions is confusing, but the latest deleted version of the page is still very unpromising. (It looks like a G11 speedy candidate to me, since it reads like an advertisement, has little or no exposition, and it just rattles off a bunch of credentials of unknown significance). Respectfully, I suggest a new deletion review at such time as a better article is created in user space, so there can be a discussion as to whether it now meets the bar. We should allow undeletion of the user space article so the editor can work on it. Keep the name salted in mainspace until a new DRV permits recreation of an article. Let's not have more out-of-process recreations. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is mainly a comment addressing User:Jerry's first comment above, just to clarify some misunderstandings:

1. Jerry claims that I forgot to delete the redirect-to-a-user-page when I userfied the article on March 13. This is not entirely true; I placed a db-rediruser tag on the page (since I didn't become an admin until later that day, I couldn't delete it myself).
2. When I moved the article back to article space on March 15, it was a proper move and not a cut-and-paste move, as suggested above.
3. The reason I moved it back in the first place was because I thought that notability had been established. I admit it was "borderline" but I felt it was leaning towards being an appropriate article. I see now that I probably should have brought it here in the first place, but we're here now, so...

Anyway, after reading the rest of the comments I see that I jumped the gun, so I'll endorse deletion without prejudice and also support keeping it on his userpage. ... discospinster _talk 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My humble apologies, Discospinster... I was unaware that you made admin in the brief period between the page move and my review of the logs. I suppose I should walk by RFA every so often, eh? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion in mainspace and userspace. This shows an obsessive desire to create an article on a subject which plainly does not meet our inclusion standards, and every iteration I've seen is plain old-fashioned spam. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Upon reading these opinions and discussing my article with other admins, I am in the process of rewriting the article in a manner more suited for the majority. I do however take offense to my article being labeled as "Spam". You may criticize me for my writing style or lack there of, but do not accuse me of pushing spam onto this site. I feel this is an article on a prominent figure in the fashion industry in South East Asia. While the subject of fashion might not be everyone's cup of tea per say, it is relevant to the goings on in an industry that generates billions of dollars globally. My desire to get this article online not only stems from the fact I believe the content to be valid, but I also want to be able to contribute to this site continually, and to do that successfully I want to learn the correct way to create an article.

Thank you. Succisa75 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn I can't see the article, but procedurally I'm worried that there was only one comment in the AfD. The article in the Financial Times (certainly non-trivial) and the three or so in New Straits Times (one which looks non-trivial) seem to meet WP:N issues. In any case, I think this should have been relisted rather than deleted. Hobit (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article and would like feedback on it. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Succisa75/Sandbox Succisa75 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Toddst1 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thanks. Made the changes you requested. Please see above sandbox link.Succisa75 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who play German-style board games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

This category was misinterpreted as a "masquerade" for users of an external website, but is in fact a legitimate "users by interest" category. I've made changes to both the user box linking to this category, and the category itself to remove any confusion about its purpose. In it's current form, I believe it follows policy. — Aldaron • T/C 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is the cat you mean? It doesn't appear to have been deleted ever. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It the user box pointing to it has been "unhooked" from it, and the reason given is that this is a CfD. — Aldaron • T/C 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link to the UCfD. That might help. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I highly doubt I misinterpreted the category introduction: "For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek." - and the userbox text: "This user is a BoardGameGeek." It's very clear that this is about playing board games at the website (note even the usage of the capitals witout spaces between the words), and has zero to do with collaborating on articles about board games. And if now, one were to change the text of the userbox, or the category header, it calls into question if this would then miscategorise Wikipedians. Even if we were to accept the premise of the nominator above (that this is not about the website), at the very least this specific userbox (which obviously does concern the website) should not populate this category. (Which, AFAICT, would leave the category empty - C1 speediable.) - jc37 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I still don't follow you. The category and user box have been fixed. What is your problem with it now? Or perhaps more to the point: what does one now have to do to get a userbox and category that does what I'm claiming this one does (which is really all that's of interest to me or most people who have used it): to have a category (like the chess and mahjong players have) that identifies players of German style boardgame? do I really have to delete this one, unhook the userbox, build a new user box, define a new category (what would it be called, the name of this one is just right) and then have everyone who now uses this category edit their pages, or can't we just preserve the corrected version of the existing userbox and category? — Aldaron • T/C 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per my comments above. - jc37 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer per Jc's comments above. --Kbdank71 13:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Currently the category is called "Wikipedias who play German-style board games", the category page clearly defines it as a group of users who play German-style board games, and the template used to link to the category clearly states that it is for users who play those games. Whatever confusion there was about the purpose of the category in the past, it clearly serves a far less sinister purpose than you seem to accuse it of. What's the point of deleting it now? The whole thing will just have to be added back with a less accurate name in the future. — Aldaron • T/C 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with just rewording the userbox is that it's likely to create miscategorisation. The people who added the userbox to their user page did so because of its content; now that the content has changed, the userbox may no longer apply to them. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that true? I don't believe it is. In any case, the user box now also clearly states its correct purpose, and has had it's icon updated to call attention to the change, so any user who cares will delete it if they feel they have been miscategorized Deleting the category is just nuts, because we'll have to make a new one to replace it, and what will we call it? Seriously, this is just a misunderstanding, it shouldn't result in the loss of a useful category of users. — Aldaron • T/C 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that most people would notice a change to the wording of a single userbox, especially when many editors have dozens of such boxes on their user pages. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I give up. What do you suggest I call the new category for Wikipedians who play German-style boardgames, once this one is deleted? — Aldaron • T/C 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to get you to "give up", but rather to encourage an alternate way for seeking to preserve categorisation that minimises the potential for miscategorisation. I think that the problem was not with the category title, but rather the way it was populated. So, I think that the text of the original userbox should be restored and the creation of a new category based on the new userbox discussed. In other words, rather than attempting to reverse the "delete" closure, I think it would be more efficient to attempt to get consensus for refocusing the scope of the category from one for visitors to BoardGameGeek to one for editors interested in the topic of German-style board games. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn There doesn't seem to be a reason to delete now that the boardgamegeek link has been cut. Hobit (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per my comments above and in concurrence with Hobit. Additionally, deletion will create confusion for users who are already members of the category, and will necessitate the creation of a new less accurate name for a replacement category. — Aldaron • T/C 01:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Even if Jc37 had been completely wrong in the nominator's rationale, there is no reason for this category or any similar category to ever exist. It doesn't help Wikipedia to know "who plays" anything, and no such categories should be created or recreated. The deletion was sound. VegaDark (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is new logic (and not part of the original reasoning, as I understand it). If that's the case (and truly represents policy) then fine, but the parent category and all sub categories (for example, Wikipedians who play go) should be deleted too. — Aldaron • T/C 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy on user categories other than WP:NOT, what is acceptable or not is generally driven by consensus. So that is my opinion, not policy. As for the other board game categories being deleted, many have been deleted recently and I would agree with the deletion of the rest. VegaDark (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The AfD is clear, it does not look like there was any misinterpretation. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per my and others' comments above, but permit recreation of Category:Wikipedians interested in German-style board games iff it is properly populated. A specific userbox for visiting a website should not populate such an interest category and, in general, the content of userboxes that are currently being used by many editors should not be dramatically changed. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that makes sense. And that category name is the right one (and consistent with the parent). What's should I do with the old userbox though? It now points nowhere and (despite your assertions) most people who have it put it on their pages because they're "interested in German-style board games" (not because of an affiliation with a website), so the correct thing to do (unless you think I'm lying) is to have that add the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that you're lying, but neither you nor I can really know why someone added the userbox to their user page. I'm ambivalent about what should be done with it. On the one hand, I generally don't favour repurposing in-use userboxes; on the other, your seemingly firm belief that use of the original userbox is tied to an interest in the subject of German-style board games is having an effect. I think that, for now, I'll leave it to others' to comment on the issue. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's simply a matter of accuracy. Essentially there are at least two criteria in place for the current userbox. German-style board games playing, and usage of the website. Due to WP:AGF, among other things, we presume that those who placed this userbox on their userpage ascribe to either or both criteria, and felt secure enough in that to place said userbox on their userpage. Now if someone comes along and "repurposes" a userbox, we run into the problem of the possiblility that the userbox may now not apply to the user who affixed the box to their userpage. And considering that users are frequently not active or on Wikibreak, or may just not have noticed the change, "re-purposing" a userbox is an incredibly bad idea. I agree with the others above: Revert the existing userbox to it's previous form (while removing the category per the discussion), and add the "re-created" category to the new userbox. As always, we should "err on the side of caution" when dealing with declaratives and categorisation of Wikipedians. - jc37 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In the abstract, for two arbitrary criteria, this makes sense, but the truth of the matter is that the two criteria are not mutually exclusive: anyone whose interest in "affiliation" with the BGG website is strong enough to have inspired placing the userbox on his page is also interested enough in German-style games that they would hardly be harmed or confused (or feel "repurposed") by the change of characterization of the category. The chance that anyone with the userbox lacks an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. So I don't see this as "repurposing", but as an inconsequential refocusing. And even that is only for those who added the userbox with BGG foremost in their thinking—as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website. To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. So it's clear to me that the correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. — Aldaron • T/C 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what you're missing here is that there is no need for the userbox to have a category attached. Those using the old userbox, still can. What we're discussing is whether the category is appropriate for inclusion in that transcluded userbox. In addition (though really outside the scope of this discussion) that "repurposing/refocusing" a userbox which is transcluded on other's userpages is a really bad idea. Period. Just because someone may like a certain website, doesn't mean they may like a topic associated with that website. And I note that BGG deals with more than just "german-style board games". Anyway, all this aside, by attempting to change the original userbox, and so on, you've essentially agreed with the premise of the original closure, so this DRV can probably be closed as "endorse" now. - jc37 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL. No I completely disagree with the original premise (as I've tried to explain), but having fallen down the deletionist rabbit hole, I've tried my best to get back to reality (and have, of course, only become more disoriented in the process). In any case. I'll do my best to sort this out so that it does the least damage to the real people who are actually using the userbox to find each other and contribute game-related content. Please do delete the old category though, since nothing will point to it. — Aldaron • T/C 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• People can find others using the userbox without having any category associated with it by simply using the "what links here" function on the left side of the page while at the userbox page. VegaDark (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice for the closer - Please see also User_talk:J_Greb#3PO, and particularly its subsection: User_talk:J_Greb#Ok.2C_found_it, in which this discussion is somewhat continued. There is some information and some links which are noteworthy. - jc37 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary Review: I request that this article be restored to my userspace so I can simply copy the content to my computer. I have no intentions to restart the article. UrPQ31 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the e-mail you registered works, I believe that'd be easier. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fine.--UrPQ31 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lillian Verner Game Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Temporary Review: I request that this article be restored to my userspace so I can simply copy the content to my computer. I have no intentions to restart the article. UrPQ31 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the e-mail you registered works, I believe that'd be easier. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fine.--UrPQ31 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article on Damir Dokić (father of Jelena Dokić) was speedily deleted under CSD G10, which covers attack pages and severe BLP problems. I understand the need for caution for biographies of living people, but I strongly suspect that G10 does not apply. When I last edited the article, it was not a hit job by an editor with an axe to grind. Instead, it was the biography of someone who has mainly been in the news for his misconduct. I think he is notable, based on sustained coverage in broadsheet media, but even if he wasn't, by itself it doesn't merit G10 - rather, an AfD or merging would be more appropriate. I'd discuss with the deleting admin, but the person is no longer contributing to wikipedia. Andjam (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the article was primarily about the misconduct, then it is a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:UNDUE. -- Kesh (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - The article was primarily negative comments with no sources; speedy G10 applies. Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion As said above the whole article reads throughout just as one negative statement after another and almost completly unsourced. Speedy deletion was the correct course of action in those circumstances. Would suggest just creating a redirect to Jelena Dokić where any notability he has stems from and where he is already mentioned quite a bit. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse We have a BLP policy for several good reasons. Articles like this are one of them. I personally apply BLP very narrowly,but I would have unhesitatingly applied a G!0 under that policy for this article as it stands. This is the very model of an attack page, consisting almost entirely of unsourced negative statements. DGG (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can someone email me the version that I edited (I think I wikified a Balkan newspaper) and the version that got deleted? I didn't recall it being an attack article at the time I edited it. I promise not to publish any BLP-violating content. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Damir Dokić is a very controversial person, the epitome of the tennis dad. A lot of controversial things can be listed here. But that's all the more reason to be cautious. This article listed a lot of controversies, with very little sourcing. As such, it violated WP:BLP, and deleting the article was justified imo. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, negative and unsourced.--Doc^g 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of this version, no opinion on recreation with iron clad sourcing. Damir has recived a lot of media coverage over the years. Viridae^Talk 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Nothing but unsourced negative material about a living person, no good version. Valid BLP deletion. It can be recreated from scratch withing the limits of BLP. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion but certainly allow recreation. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid G10, but allow recreation of a neutral article with proper sourcing. --Coredesat 06:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion entirely negative biography citing virtually no sources. Recreation is fine if the new version is sourced and NPOV. Hut 8.5 07:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per almost everyone above. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (having redirected it). This article only has two versions: an unequivocal A7 and an unequivocal G10. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the Don Murphy deletion review has been moved to its own subpage as it was becoming too long for this page. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy if you wish to comment. Nick (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]