Casey Gardiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AFD2)

New information and sources are now available, which proves it worthy of inclusion. Cached Page, Player Bio on Professional Tennis Website, Core Tennis page (Professional Player database), and also Player history. There was no argument after this information was noted in the article and AfD discussion ATPTennis (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nothing really has changed. A Google search for "Casey Gardiner" tennis reveals all of 89 hits, the only one of which that could be considered a reliable source being the ITF link listed above. And all that says is that he got destroyed in a low level, minor tournament. The Core Tennis link is just a directory that gives us only a name and that one loss. The Universal Tennis link appears to be a social networking thing for tennis players. Not a reliable source. Based on the sources provided, this is all we can say about him: "Casey Gardiner plays tennis. He lost baddly at an F25 Futures event on September 29, 2008". Resolute 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - It isn't a mater of being worthy of inclusion. There needs to be enough reliable source material to write the article. So far, the New York Times article seems to be the only reliable source information. And that seems to say that Lance Cpl. Casey Gardiner gossiped to the newspapers about Senator John McCain's son, Jimmy. That does not seem to be enought information from which to write a Wikipedia article. Also, it is not clear that the tennis Casey Gardiner and the New York Times Casey Gardiner are one in the same. -- Suntag ☼ 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (as deleting admin) - I don't see what has changed since I deleted the article. I guess the requestor should have asked me about this first, but without something new, I would have declined to restore anyway. Kevin (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse He may approach notability with play in tournaments, but as it stands now, the sources do not support the claim and the AfD appears to refelct that. I could not find a single source with the terms "Casey Gardiner" AND tennis in Google News / Archive. Once there is enough about Gardiner to merit an article, backed by reliable and verifiable sources, there should be no obstacle to recreation. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:EricV89/TeenWiki Cabal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

No consensus for deletion. Those citing WP:NOT#MYSPACE gave no explanation or provided any evidence of how the situation violated WP:NOT#MYSPACE. This page was recently created and the author of the userpage specifically said "It's a humourous cabal nothing more. Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors. --eric (mailbox) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)". Those supporting deletion had only unfounded accusations, and didn't even bother to explain their rationale beyond a generic "ew, myspace" response. Policy did not support this deletion. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Google cache version doesn't show that the page was edited (removing the featured movie and track sections) to help alleviate some of the concerns brought up on the MfD. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Er, Policy does actually say that Wikipedia is not myspace and the closing admin clearly took account of the not hurting anyone arguments. There is no policy based reasons why attempts have to be made to improve pages while they are up for discussion and the deleted history shows 8 page edits between nomination and deletion. I see no policy or procedural issues with this close and DRV is not MFD round 2. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to color the judgment of those that show up here, so I'll refrain from making arguments. I have undeleted the history of the page though, so people commenting can see the page's content and evaluate the changes that were made to it during the MFD. east718 // talk // email // 05:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll have to say overturn to no consensus. Policy-based reasons were considered during the MFD and there was no consensus to delete here. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The term "WP:MYSPACE" is shorthand for the idea that Wikipedia is not a social network. It does not means that a particular Wikipedia page has all the elements that make up a MySpace page. Per WP:User, Wikipedia provides user pages to facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. As the closer pointed out, Keep because it is harmless or humorous does not address this. However, per WP:NOTMYSPACE, humorous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace. The humorous keep reasoning did not address how the humor refer to Wikipedia in some way and why the user subpage was an appropriate namespace for such Wikipedia humor. As the closer indicated, the delete reasoning did focus on the issue of whether the page facilitated communication to help build the encyclopedia and was consistent in saying that the page did not operate to facilitate communication to help build the encyclopedia. The edits to the page during the MfD didn't seem to change the direction of the discussion. Since the delete reasoning was stronger than the keep reasoning, it appears that the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. -- Suntag ☼ 13:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why people keep thinking it was a humorous page in the sense that it was a joke page, like say the Upper Peninsula War. When the creator of the page mentioned humorous it seemed far more in the sense of being light hearted. Considering the talk page doesn't even exist, and the lack of any actual socializing besides a list of editors, where is the WP:MYSPACE violation? As the author stated "Not meant for socialization, only discussions on how to improve Wikipedia among teen editors." The worst you can accuse this page of is being inactive and ineffective of that goal, but it wasn't violating WP:MYSPACE. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While looking at the history just now, I noticed it always had the humor banner at the top. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The delete reasons asserting that the page did not facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia seemed stronger than the keep arguments asserting that the page did facilitate communication among participants in its project to build an encyclopedia. -- Suntag ☼ 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understandable, but I've always taken that to mean something is ineffective, rather than a violation of something via process of elimination (if it's not used for X then it must be used for Y). -- Ned Scott 04:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Process followed, close within discretion, good MFD. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, strongly. Wikipedia has far more reason than simple annoyance to avoid becoming a social network. Social networks are under a lot of media and legal scrutiny right now and probably aren't far away from federal restrictions which, if WP is found to be affected, would be sharply at odds with our goal of being a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what bothers me about this deletion, the continued assertion that it is MYSPACE/social net/LOLisezpenis type situation without any evidence of that kind of disruption. No one here disagrees with your statement when read alone, but myself and others disagree that it applies to this situation. The argument that there could be legal issues related to this is a very big stretch. -- Ned Scott 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion It seems like it was a reasonable close. Frankly, I think we should generally just leave all this sort of material alone if the editors are being productive aside from this since the bandwith use is small and if it keeps people around and contributing to the encyclopedia then it is overall a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. That said, this seems like a reasonable close. I might have voiced a different opinion if the situation were different such as if the page had an element of trying to get more teenagers interested in Wikipedia, but that doesn't seem to have been the case here. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be opposed to giving EricV89 the chance to make it into something more productive? As I said above, at worst this page was inactive and not really effective in its goals, but it certainly wasn't a violation of WP:MYSPACE (I'm thinking we need a WP:MYSPACEPARANOIA essay..). I'm all for cleaning out the crap (I was one of the editors that got the ball rolling on the ESA deletions), but if it's not actually problematic and it is on the subpage of an active user, then why not treat it like something that has reasonable potential? These kinds of pages seem to get nipped in the bud before they ever have a chance to become something good. A lot of WikiProjects and other collaborative groups really sucked when they first started out, and this one wasn't even "bad". Where was the need to delete this page, and how did it violate policy? -- Ned Scott 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opposition to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the page is being delete and it's subject matter becomes subject to CSD G4. EricV89's right to use his/her user subpages consistent with WP:User remains the same as it was before the MfD. -- Suntag ☼ 07:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ned seems to be the only one confused as to why this violates WP:MYSPACE. It is clearly a page used purely for social purposes; WP:MYSPACE says Wikipedia is not a social networking space. Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. seresin ( ¡? )  23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least four of us from the MfD feel that way, and one more editor here at DRV feels that the MYSPACE argument was considered but not decidedly true. It was nothing more than a contact list of editors who got along or had similar interests. That's not prohibited by WP:MYSPACE. Eric specifically mentions that the intent is not for casual socializing, but for Wikipedia-related discussion among a group of teenagers. No discussions had even started, so at worst it was inactive, but still not a violation of WP:MYSPACE. Being a broken record doesn't prove your point, it only makes your argument look weaker. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'll ask you the same question I just asked Joshua, would you oppose giving Eric the chance to prove himself with the page and make it explicitly clear that it is for Wikipedia collaboration? I was thinking about this today, and together with some of our advice for schools that do projects with Wikipedia, it might not be a bad idea to have some kind of "teen" WikiProject. If we keep treating anything dealing with teenagers as being "myspaceish" and assuming bad faith then we'll never be able to develop something like that. -- Ned Scott 02:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should take your own advice Ned. And no, nobody at the MfD, save you, said the page didn't violate MYSPACE. All (save the creator, who merely said it wasn't for socialization which is clearly false) said only that it was humorous and did not harm. No mention of MYSPACE. The page did indeed say it was for Wikipedia-related discussion, but absolutely none of that took place, and general socializing did (and most of it by the creator himself, so to assert that he intended it for strictly Wikipedia-related discussion is, again, contrary to the evidence). WikiProjects are organized by their focus, not by the types of editors which it comprises. If we were to break that convention (which we shouldn't), then it would be hosted in Wikipedia: space, and would need to be totally reorganized, making restoration of this page unneeded. seresin ( ¡? )  02:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, what's with the hostility? "and general socializing did" page history is undeleted, and nothing of the sort happened. (which isn't to say that would make it violate WP:MYSPACE, but as you said, it was almost entirely the creator of the page making edits) With the movie/music section removed, it was nothing more than a list of editors. More socializing happens on user talk pages with people leaving each other happy birthday cards and silly little notes. You're citing a list of names and inactivity as signs of being like myspace?
        • You're wrong about me being the only person who felt the page didn't violate WP:MYSPACE. The second keep supporter doesn't even mention the word humor ("Keep Looks completely harmless. If/when there's a problem, we can do something about it then."), and again you blatantly assume bad faith of Eric and discredit his view altogether. If someone is supporting keeping something in light of an accusation like WP:MYSPACE, and they say it's not causing disruption, then it doesn't take a genius to fairly say that they don't agree with the deletion argument. It might be similar in some vague ways to myspace and socializing/discussion, but that does not make it violate WP:MYSPACE. But hey, how about we just ask them? I'll leave a note on their talk pages to ask for clarification on what they meant. -- Ned Scott 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • [1], [2]. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No hostility, I just find it amusing that you are the one beating your point into the ground, convincing no one, and yet you tell me that I am being a broken record and weakening my argument. Where did you get the idea that MYSPACE has anything at all to do with disruption? The word 'disruptive' or 'disruption' does not even appear in the section. WP:NOT#MYSPACE (point 1) only discusses Wikipedia pages which are used as a social network, which, interestingly, is the function MySpace serves. And I am aware that the second keep supporter didn't mention the word humor. Rather, he said it was harmless, which would be the second thing I listed; although my use of 'and' rather than 'or' implies both arguments were used, I suspect you were not truly mislead. I'll amend it so that there is no further confusion. I did not assume bad faith of eric, nor did I discredit his view; rather I noted that what he said the page was for and what he used the page for were two very different things. And finally, the socializing was indeed removed, but it was not replaced with any sort of aim for encyclopedic collaboration, and so it seems to me the page, had it not been rightfully deleted, would have continued to be used for socializing. seresin ( ¡? )  03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • My apologies for the broken record comment, as mentioned on your talk page, but again I disagree with your assessment on the situation. I've got OCD which leads me to over think things sometimes, causing me to rant. I'm not trying to beat my point into the ground, rather I'm honestly trying to understand your perspective as well as trying to clarify my own. "convincing no one" is also wrong, like I said before, I'm not the only one who holds this view, not even in this very DRV. Again, I apologies for coming off as hostile, and I will try to back off from this. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh a side note, I don't think the idea of a Teen WikiProject is that out there, nor does it break the traditional WikiProject concept. This would be about content, and editors of all ages would be able to join. It simply would be of particular interest to teen editors because the subject of the project would be teen-related issues. The same way most of the people in WP:ANIME are anime fans, but we don't think of it as being organized by types of editors. There certainly is enough out there to collaborate on to make it worth exploring. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse as the original nominator, my original premises remain unchanged. This page violates policy by socially networking users in a way that might hinder productivity. While the BRC is meant to be funny, it is NOT meant to network users.  Marlith (Talk)  02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that is your position in the MFD, but what we are asking here is if you felt there was consensus among those in the MFD or not. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I would be interested in hearing you expand on the idea that it could actually hinder productivity, considering it existed for a few months and had yet to do so. -- Ned Scott 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the subject of the BRC, I've always felt it was specifically intended to be both humorous and allow a connection between editors. The BRC is made up of editors who are friends, or at least more close than your average editor. There's definitely a click involved there (but that isn't a bad thing). I find it very hard to swallow that the BRC is not about socializing (but in a way that is positive and helps Wikipedia by encouraging a strong feeling of community). -- Ned Scott 02:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. A reasonable MfD close, reflecting policy-based arguments presented in the discussion. Although I did not participate in the original MfD, I certainly would have voted delete myself. Apart from the general Myspace and social networking issues raised in the MfD, I also strongly dislike the privacy implications of having a page of this kind. We really should not encourage, not even indirectly, WP users to reveal anything about their age, and certainly not to disclose their underage/teen status. Nsk92 (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This page did not violate WP:NOTMYSPACE. If it did, it was borderline. It had yet to do anything as well, so we weren't to know if it was going to violate it or not. Apart from the claims of "myspace", there was no policy given reason for this to go. I'll be happy to opine on a future MFD, once this cabal has done something. -- how do you turn this on 14:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even though I originally voted keep, I now see that it violates WP:MYSPACE. If they wish to have casual conversation, they are welcome to use IRC. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While I still don't think consensus was reached in the MfD, I should place my views here in context. This really is a minor situation that I don't feel is that important, but I feel that situations like this might cause a slippery slope. I've seen other XfDs where something that was useful, or at least had realistic potential in being useful, was deleted for the possibility of being a violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. So I guess you could say that this MfD struck a nerve, but rest assure that I'm sane enough to realize that this particular page really didn't hold something valuable. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the closing admin said the arguements for keeping the page (harmless/humourous) do not stand up to the policy based arguements for deletion. (Of probably less importance I think there's some kind of Wikimedia directive against age discrimination within its projects.) Guest9999 (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No notice of AfD on merge-target article TJRC (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD may be found here. The closure was to merge to Strappado. Given the discussion apparently quickly morphed to a merger proposal, notice should have been given to the target article, to invite discussion from editors of that article. The result of merger was reached with no input of the editors of the Strappado article. Controversial merger discussions generally provide notice on both articles.

I believe that the outcome would have been very different had the Strappado editors been given notice and a chance to participate. The Strappado article is very focused on the actual use of strappado as torture, usually government-sponsored torture, throughout the world. It has a very different focus from the sexual play, and the sexual play aspect has no place in it. I request that the discussion be reopened after the editors of that article have had notice of the proposal and an opportunity to participate. TJRC (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if my close is being contested or just the lack of advertising. BJ^Talk 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear: I'm not objecting to BJ's action. Given the way the discussion went, it was certainly a good-faith close on his part. I'm contesting the process and result, because it was done without the input of the editors of Strappado, who would have had valuable input to the discussion,and who should have been heard from. TJRC (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. Requiring the notification of anyone and everyone who might possibly care about an AFD is impossible, besides being process creepy. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and retarget merge to BDSM - The AfD discussion was listed at WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. As for individual notifications, there were 27 unique editors to the article (10 IP addresses). User:Taxwoman made 11 edits to the Strappado bondage article, which was the most number of edits to the article. Notification in that case probably wouldn't have done much since Taxwoman is banned from editing. Matt Crypto had 4 edits to the article and Jbc01 (AfD notified) and CheshireKatz each had 3 edits. The rest had 2 or 1 number of edits to the article. As for the merge target, it doesn't seem possible to place an AfD notice on an AfD merge target article since the merge target is not known until the AfD is over. It would be was appropriate to place a DRV notice on the Strappado talk page and would be appropriate to notify editors of the Strappado article about this Drv. The (i) individual notice issue and (ii) placing AfD notices on AfD merge target articles can be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). There might be reliable sources out there, see Google books, but the lack of reliable source material was the reason for the merge consensus. DGGs position, "some other forms of bondage--possibly a general article on arm bondage which would cover several of todays articles-- but probably not to the torture device" makes sense. I think BDSM is the best choice. -- Suntag ☼ 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close no reason given to overturn AfD consensus. If the editors at Strappado don't want the merged content (and I can't blame them) they have the option to merge it someplace else instead, or to remove it entirely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Proper deletion process followed, no requirement to notify of pending proposed merger. MBisanz ^talk 14:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a BDSM related article - Bondage_(BDSM)#Technique is the best that I can see. Strappado bondage is primarily not at all a form of torture, as claimed by several of those who voted Merge - as explained in the article (and as the name implies), it is a form of bondage. I.e., one holds the position associated with "strappado", but it is not generally intended to apply pain. Even in cases where this might be done, I feel it's unlikely it's done to anywhere near the same level - i.e., as described in Strappado#Variants: "this will cause a very intense pain and possible dislocation of the arms", "The technique typically causes brachial plexus injury, leading to paralysis or loss of sensation in the arm" and "leading to broken shoulders". Ouch! This is nothing at all like strappado bondage. You do make a good point - with a merge proposal, the SOURCE and TARGET articles are tagged, but with AfD, editors can vote to merge it to any random article, which is not tagged. I don't think that the material can simply be pasted in as a subsection, because the rest of the article talks about strappado as a torture (see the quotes I give above), so the editors are left with the task of reworking the entire article to address both issues. Although it's true that, as User:Starblind says, there is no reason why editors can't later move the content elsewhere. The question of where to move it is unclear though - whilst I'd say a bondage or BDSM article is more appropriate than strappado, the problem is that currently, all other bondage positions have their own article (see Category:Bondage positions). If you look at the Bondage (BDSM) and BDSM articles, a section just for one particular type of bondage will look rather out of place. Any better suggestions? I also disagree that this is a dictionary definition, as argued by the Delete votes - whilst "strappado" and "bondage" are words, I would not expect to look up "strappado bondage" in the dictionary... Mdwh (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. No requirement to notify at the target article. The AFD was properly conducted. A brief mention in the article on the torture, that some people get sexual enjoyment from the torture, or from thinking about it or looking at pictures of it, is worth including in the target article, so ling as there is at least one reliable source to satisfy verification. It could be deleted from the target article if that is the consensus there. Edison (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see my comment above - this article isn't about people getting sexual enjoyment from strappado torture, it's about a form of bondage; nor is the article about images of strappado torture. If the consensus is still to merge it there, that's fine, but it should be done so under a correct understanding of the term. Mdwh (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like the same situation as Cell (Dragon Ball). Merge AfD closures are suggestions, not set-in-stone things. Feel free to reject, retarget, or otherwise change around the way the merge actually does or doesn't happen (using talkpage consensus). If it turns out the page doesn't get merged, another AfD for it may be appropriate. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Request withdrawn - Thank you all for your comments on this. It seems clear that the consensus is to endorse the deletion, for substantial reasons. For my part I had not realized, as a few editors have pointed out and User:Lifebaka puts so clearly, "Merge AfD closures are suggestions, not set-in-stone things." I have no objection to the article's deletion, only its merger into an article that is pretty clearly only superficially related. I withdraw my request for review, and we'll deal with the issue of where to merge in the ordinary course. Thank you all for your input and education. TJRC (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoeCool950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Need the orignal user page back up. Did not want it deleted and ask that it be restored to the original. Don't like how I had to redue it and want it restored, if you could find where it was originally deleted, then bring it back up for me JoeCool950 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]