Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 May 4
2007 May 6 >

5 May 2007

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Until_June (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The sole reason for deletion was the fact that the band was non-notable. However, some time has passed since the deletion, and their songs have gotten good reviews & are in the press. There is enough literature to write about the band. Wikimachine 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's a response to both: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], & [6]. ( Wikimachine 22:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) reply
  • Erm, is this the same "Until June" we're talking about? Because if it is, I hardly see how being signed to a major label constitutes "not asserting notability" necessary for A7. In fact, it doesn't. Maybe the band didn't fulfill WP:MUSIC, but it certainly should not have been speedied... that is, if the userfied page I linked to is the same band we're talking about. Any admin care to confirm? Rockstar ( T/ C) 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. The AfD is misleading, as the article was actually incorrectly speedied as an A7 - a major label deal is an assertion of notability. As the person requesting undeletion is suggesting there's more material to work with since the initial deletion, overturning the improper speedy is the best course of action. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn per my own comment above and Jeff. The band is signed to a major label. They might not fulfill WP:MUSIC (though I'm sure they do), but the page is definitely not speedyable as notability was asserted. Rockstar ( T/ C) 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn This was several tiems deleted with a cite to WP:CSD#G4 (repost of deleted content) as at least part of teh delte reason. but this was never deleted as a result of an AfD or other discussion-based process, so G4 clearly never applied. Admisn should rememeber that G4 simply is not to be used for cases where the previous deeltes were all speedy. As for A7, a stateent that ther is a record deal with a major label is clearly at least an assertion of notability. Whether this will pass an AfD I can't predict, but it is clearly not a proper speedy. DES (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comments - Several "votes" below are discounted due to the following reason (copied from WP:DRV):
  • "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the AfD debate. This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content."

And since nearly all (though not entirely all) the endorse closure comments below were commenting about the content directly. "What is the point of a category for five movies when there is already a navigational template?" - Doesn't deal with the question of the closure at all, and several others agreed with that comment.

However, since those below did comment in this way, obviously there are more who wish to "chime in" and discuss the category. So relisting for further discussion would seem to be the best way to attempt to truly determine consensus, and I presume that's the goal of the CfD in the first place. - jc37 00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply


Category:Scary Movie films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There was no consensus to delete here: two votes to delete, two votes to keep, and no violation of format or context. User:radiant decided on an arbitrary number of articles that justify a category, and enforced it. I'd like to suggest that a tie is not a statement by the community that the administrator can do whatever he wants.-- Mike Selinker 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

No I didn't, what on earth gives you that idea? Don't put words in my mouth. The point is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, "there is no logical argument not to categorize this" is a fallacy as the nominator gave a perfectly logical argument. >Radiant< 08:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
You said in the closing: "An important distinction with "Friday the 13th" is that there are way more of those." That's deciding on an arbitrary number of articles-- Mike Selinker 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No, you're wrong. Deciding an arbitrary number would mean "keep all movie family categories that have at least four members", as some people have recently suggested. >Radiant< 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment neutral to the categories/topic under discussion - While I note that he at least removed some of the more perjorative text from his comment above, I'm seeing that this discussion (not just this sub-thread) seems to have been about more than just the categories in question, such as questioning User:Radiant!'s neutrality in administrative discernment (including CfD closures). Perhaps Wikipedia:Request for comment might be a good next step, to at least provide a place to discuss civilly. And to hopefully not sidetrack this discussion any further. - jc37 08:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak endorse - There's already a template linking them all. Will ( is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: As evidenced by the discussion here, even if deletion would have been the correct eventual decision, the action was taken before the community as a whole believes doing so was proper. ( Sdsds - Talk) 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I encourage careful reading of the entry in the nomination which starts, "The result of the debate was...", which is one of many changes made in this edit. The admin states an opinion in reply to one of the participants in the discussion, but does not give that participant an opportunity to respond. How can that be consistent with the goal of taking action only after consensus is reached? ( Sdsds - Talk) 03:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Those are a number of regular closings so I really fail what you're getting at, other than that you appear to be unfamiliar with how CFD works and how it's closed. Since the page was not protected, nothing barred people from responding either there or on my talk page. >Radiant< 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The template that was transcluded to close the discussion includes the text: "Please do not modify it." So you are right, "nothing barred people from responding [...] there", except their desire to follow the stated process. Is that template designed to squelch further discussion, or is it designed to document a discussion which had reached a conclusion? To naive CFD readers such as myself, its use in this case gave the appearance of "getting in the last word". ( Sdsds - Talk) 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Radiant is not responsible for your or anyone else's misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. But even if you felt that you couldn't comment in the CFD after it closed, you could still have commented on Radiant's talk page. All of this is irrelevant to the nomination, the deletion and this discussion. Otto4711 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This conversation is relevant to WP:DRV#Purpose item 2: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." There was no consensus to delete. The closer erred in writing, "The result of the debate was delete" when that was not the result of the debate. The obvious choice was to close with "no consensus". (What isn't relevant to this discussion is my naivete regarding this process, nor is the closer's apparent pattern of closing discussions in ways that others feel are erroneously assertive.) ( Sdsds - Talk) 05:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Closers have and should have some range of judgement, but a 2/2 split with at least some arguemnts on each side simply is not consensus to delete, that is imposing the closer's judgement, in effect a speedy delete. Overturn no need to relist. DES (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Esperanza (  | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Esperanza|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

I do not see why this excellent project was ever deleted. It played a fine and delicate part to wikipedia, which helped us take pride in editing, and provided excellent building blocks to our community. As an editor, I edited anon since October and I seen the project but only took interest when I seen its history. It had hundreds of members, and many were sad to see it go. I don't understand really why it was deleted because it wasn't useless. It's concept was amazing. So please can you consider this nomination and help restore it, binding the former projects back into one. I see no reason how this project was ever distracting the encyclopedia building on Wikipedia. It was rather teaching editors to have pride and fun in editing wikipedia, and perhaps we could restore the project and "change" it, so it helps on the encyclopedia building too, aswell as helping editors. Eaomatrix 14:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply


  • I think we've been here before. Esperanza was shut down with overwhelming community consensus to do so. In all good faith, I don't think this DRV is necessary. Moreschi Talk 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close per previous DRV. Restoring Esperanza is, effectively, mission impossible, without it turning into the bureaucracy it was before. Most of the beneficial projects of Esperanza were already divided into separate projects, so there's no need to restore the program itself.-- WaltCip 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Don't speedy close- I have a point, and Esperanza is worthful. It helped our community. So don't. Eaomatrix 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Deleted - Esperanza was nothing but a pointless bureaucracy and a bunch of good projects. Getting rid of Esperanza yet granting soverignity to the projects got rid of the bureaucracy and it let us keep the projects. Besides, you don't need an organization to promote goodwill. Just be nice and the favor will be returned! — Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • Air Force Amy – Keep rewritten article. Looking at the debate it seems that the motives of all concerned are pure and good, but in the end the article is substantially different from the deleted one, and most importantly, it is vastly better sourced. If those sources require re-examination, consensus seems to be that a new AfD would be the way to go. Where concerns at AfD are not addressed by a new article, then re-deletion is often appropriate, but here the rewrite does indeed seem to fix the problem. – Guy ( Help!) 11:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Air Force Amy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD| AfD 2)

I could jump in and speedy this as a recreation, but though I'd better bring it here for discussion rather than jump in with the weapons. This was deleted just last week per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force Amy (second nomination). It has now been restored without discussion by AnonEMouse ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) "Restoring, rewritten, and with better sources)". What now?-- Docg 13:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse rewrite. Just because an article was AfD'd does not mean the article can't be rewritten, and it wouldn't be a speedy candidate due to it being very different than the deleted version. If I were aware of the AfD, I likely would have brought it here anyway, because that was a really sad excuse for a discussion, but I think any perceived problems have been addressed at this point. Nothing against a new AfD once this concludes (or now if you withdrew this), but yeah. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • There's a whole number of issues here 1) was the closure of the afd correct 2) if it was, are people allowed to tweek an article a bit and then reverse an AfD without any process (hey that's a dilemma for an inclusionist process wonk ;)) 3) Does it take a DRV to reverse an AfD, or can any admin just use their own common sense (which is what I think happened here. Maybe the best thing to do, given the process conflicts, is to look at the article and see if we want to keep it. Stuff proper process, since we don't know what it is.-- Docg 14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • My opinion: 1) it doesn't matter, because 2) yes, as long as at least some of the complaints in the AFD are addressed (which seems to be the case here) and 3) probably, but because the content here is substantially different (using 'substantially' in the legal sense) this doesn't apply. JulesH 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Well, 1) probably not, but because of 2), it doesn't matter much, because AfD wasn't really designed, I'd think to permanently make an article disappear into the nothingness. It's not as if this was a straight recreation, but the idea is that a bad AfD can be overturned through DRV, but DRV isn't required to do a recreation that addresses the issues at the AfD - otherwise, you're simply running the AfD again. Definitely chalk it up to the continued brokenness of DRV, for sure, but on an inclusionist process wonkery level, this seems to be on the up-and-up. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I haven't dug into this article and all its sources very carefully, but it's worth mentioning that the rewrite is well-written and appears to be well-referenced. This is not, as it stands, an article that will bring Wikipedia into disrepute. We should think very carefully about deleting again, because the article is pretty good right now. Moreschi Talk 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • List at AFD it's simply not a recreation as defined by WP:CSD... AFD is more appropriate than DRV here. -- W.marsh 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse status quo; the article is different substantially from the original so is fine. I see no need to list it at AFD, either, as I'm certain the article would pass: 13 different sources, most of which are mainstream media sources, are listed on this article now. JulesH 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • See, now this is exactly what I was trying so hard to avoid. (How's that for a summary?) See, I'm big on consensus, process, agreement, all that good stuff. I've got my official process-wonker society dues paid up in full, carry the "Good Will Towards Men" membership card, wear the "I'm OK You're OK" t-shirt. The last thing I want to do is be accused of wheel warring, going against the decision of the community, causing unnecessary conflict, or anything else that might threaten to besmirch the pristine cleanliness of my mop. (Wait; aren't mops supposed to get dirty?) And yet, this is what I end up with. See, I didn't participate in the AFD, and didn't have the article on my watchlist, but I "knew" about it because it had a certain history. So I was surprised when a link to it went red. I tracked down the AFD after it closed, noticed the complaints were that the assertion of notability was sketchy and largely unsourced, and that the complaints were reasonable, since it looked like this. I found a lot of good sources that I thought would satisfy the people asking for sources, and went to the admin closing the discussion. I asked him, should I recreate it, or take it to DRV? He didn't answer, just complained about the sources. I asked him again. He still didn't answer. Two days went by. I recreated the article, with much better sources, gave a courtesy notification to him, and to the guy who started the AFD. (Your friend and mine, Tony Sidaway, who responded that he was quite happy about the recreation, bless his soul.) So what should I have done, asked each and every person who participated in the AFD? Put it up on DRV myself, even though I had no objection to the way the AFD was closed? I have no objection to another AFD; I think since it now looks like this (I even have a request for a completely free image in the pipeline), it's been expanded and sourced well enough so it will pass by a wide margin, but maybe someone will disagree. I do think it is substantially different from the deleted content, so it is not suitable for ; there are probably two unchanged sentences, and 80% of the content is brand new. But the absolute positive last thing that I want to do here is be accused of going against process, community consensus, or anything like that. Without discussion? I tried, I really did. Where should I have discussed? Honest, I tried! -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Yup, the correct procedure here beats me too. That's why I thought I'd open a discussion rather than do anything else. If this endorses you, then I'll know it is OK to undelete things and re-write them in future, If I wish. No worries. No criticism intended.-- Docg 17:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think that discussion beforehand was necessary, due to the extent of your rewrite. Were it less clear-cut, a note on the afd's talk page would probably be appropriate, since the participants are probably still watching it. (A note on the deleted article's talk page would be better, except admins are too trigger-happy about deleting such even when it's obviously the wrong thing to do.) — Cryptic 23:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Status quo is plenty ok. If I found the current revision in CAT:CSD with a {{ deleteagain}} on top, I doubt I'd even bother to comment as I removed the tag. This is precisely the sort of case that makes WP:CSD#G4 need all the wikilawyerish exceptions in its wording. I don't think it particularly matters that AnonEMouse restored the article immediately before rewriting it, instead of restoring the history immediately after. — Cryptic 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the new article. So what if the old article was AfD'd in the past? Jeff hit it on the head -- the new article has popped up as a fully sourced article, completely different from the last time it was at AfD. Again, the deletion process is not meant to delete things permanently (well, sometimes, assuming there is zero chance for notability ever to be obtained); articles can come back and be recreated so long as they're fully sourced, which this is. Rockstar ( T/ C) 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Why are we here? If I understand the discussion so far, the AfD closure is uncontested and nobody is saying the article should be deleted. If nobody, including Doc, wants this article to be deleted, let's stop talking and speedily close this thing. Kla'quot 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
L3_Internet_TV (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Article useful but needs references. Also incomplete - additional information is forthcoming. This is a viable new technology with five patents pending. Not blatant advertising as the company or product pages were not linked to from the article Agupte 11:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Can this article text be made available somehow so non-admins can see it? cache is empty. Thanks. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion Deleted version was pretty spammy, not to mention unreferenced and having no reliable sources. Basicly just an ad for an upcoming product, with no encylopedic value. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment That's awesome, but until it can be made viewable in some fashion by an admin, only admins can make a reasonable evaluation/have an opinion, and I think I understand correctly that ALL editors are supposed to participate in DRV. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The article was unfinished - usually references and sources are added later. The article had just been started and had been on Wikipedia less than 9 hours before it and all references to it were deleted. Agupte 12:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Comment This is the kind of article where you want to get a secondary source before you write it. The Internet TV article is very prone to getting spam from (starting) companies and websites wanting to make some publicity for themselves. Without references from reliable sources, a wiki article on such a company is just that: spam. That makes them prime target for speedy deletion.-- Boffob 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Either Overturn and allow sole author to continue working on article for X number of days or overturn and start an AfD to give the author some time to do the work. There's other lower hanging fruit to delete, guys. If the primary/sole author's here and objects to the process/application of policy, can we not IAR in a productive way and evaluate whether the article is useful/conforms to policy after it's had time to mature? -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    Why restore to mainspace an inappropriate article so someone can work on it? Why not userspace? There is also no reason why someone creating new content can't do so in userspace first (or in a suitable text editor on their computer). -- pgk 19:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
And generally articles in mainspace are sourced and not spammy. What has developing an article in userspace or mainspace got to do with an assumption of good faith? There is absolutely nothing wrong with developing content in userspace and then having it moved into mainspace when up to scratch. That method has been used by many editors and certainly isn't anything to be ashamed of. WP:AGF isn't an exemption from articles meeting ou r basic standards. -- pgk 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, userfy if editor wants to work on bringing it up to standards. -- pgk 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. Obviously I can't see the deleted article, but I do trust that it was spammy. If the subject is notable enough to pass our standards, then it can be reinstated. Until then, it should just be userfied. Rockstar ( T/ C) 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw: As the original author of the article, I am withdrawing the article. Please see my User Page for the reason (not the reason that the page was orginally deleted). I would also like some feedback and discussion on the criteria for notability - please respond on my page. Agupte 03:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
François-Henri Pinault (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Not really a good article when it was deleted, but the subject is the CEO of a CAC 40 company, PPR (company)(formerly known as Pinault-Printemps-Redoute) [7], and surely passes notability criteria just for this. So I request undeletion of this article. Incidentally, his legal name is François Jean Henri Pinault,though he prefers "François-Henri" [8] 88.110.189.203 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Undelete and don't even bother listing. How on earth did this article not assert notability? He's the CEO of PPR! I think this Time Magazine article should do the trick, and there's plenty more where that came from (New York Times, WSJ, Le Monde, etc. etc. etc.) He's the son of François Pinault, is engaged to Selma Hayek... this guy just reeks of notability, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of reliable sources to boot. If there were a "speedy undelete" vote I would cast it. Rockstar ( T/ C) 04:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Undelete. List on AfD if someone really feels like it, but I don't think it's needed. This is what happens when everything is semi-automated. - Amarkov moo! 04:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The cached speedied page can be found here. On no grounds can this be a justified A7. Rockstar ( T/ C) 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Undelete, notability asserted (CEO of major index corporation) and therefore not a CSD A7 candidate. AfD optional but as said above unneeded. Probably just needs some expansion and sourcing. -- Kinu t/ c 05:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, don't list. Horribly poor decision. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 06:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, undelete, don't list at AfD - didn't this guy have lunch with the FT today? He's notable. Moreschi Talk 09:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, undelete, don't list at AfD I don't even know Wikipedia:Notability that well and I can tell this was a bad decision. Sometimes automation exists to be ignored (referring to NPWatcher). -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, overturn. No, don't list. But there's absolutely no reason to vilify Pilotguy, as several users have done above; the article was in poor enough shape that I didn't see a better importance claim than "happens to be the son of a billionaire" on my first read either. — Cryptic 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Cryptic makes a very good point. The deleted article as written says solely that the subject is the son of a billionaire and engaged to a movie actress. Even were we to ignore the long-standing principle that one cannot inherit notability, it is often the case that spouses or relatives of notable people are private individuals. Our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons notes that we aren't here to bring private individuals into the public eye, and specifies that biographical information must be rigidly held to our content policies, with editors being firm about high quality references. The only source that was cited in the article was a web log with no identifiable author or publisher. We should be demanding far better sources than that.

    The only error here was Pilotguy not checking the article's history before speedy deletion, as administrators should do. If xe had done that, xe would have seen that the article had already been tagged for speedy deletion and rejected, back in March 2007. The proper procedure for such cases, if one wants the article deleted onesself, is to take the article to AFD. Uncle G 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

    • I dont think this is about complaining about pilotguy either. though the deleted article - at least the google cache version [9] *does* specifically identify the guy as CEO of PPR (which is wikilinked),and not just a billionaire's son or Salma's beau. 88.110.177.242 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • It was the sentence ordering and the similarity of the names of the subject and his father that made me overlook it at first glance—I thought it was saying his father was the CEO of PPR, not just the owner. (The last revision of the article is the same as the google cache except for deletion tags, by the way.) — Cryptic 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Undelete per just about everyone else. RFerreira 05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of alleged al-Qaeda members (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Article met no speedy deletion criteria and an afd has just been started on it here. Article consisted mostly of links to Wikipedia articles of alleged al-Qaeda members. WP:BLP does not apply. Most of these people are on official terror watch lists or in Guantanamo. We may not agree the terror lists are right in every case but they do make a reliable source (a reliable source that someone is allegedly a terrorist. Nardman1 00:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse deletion While the AfD didn't run the full five days, there was unanimous consensus to delete, with a number of people calling for speedy. I think if such an article needs to exist at all, it should be as a cetegory, if anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • First of all, Biographies of living persons, does, in fact, apply. The list discussed living people and is therefore within jurisdiction of that policy. Could you please elaborate on why you think it does not apply, as opposed to just saying so? Second, do you really think the AfD could possibly come to any outcome besides deletion? I do not. There was a pretty obvious consensus to delete, and there is really no way that this would have shifted. Third, is there not some guideline somewhere which says to avoid the use of "alleged?" That is why I endorse deletion. Picaroon (Talk) 03:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • BLP says that negative comments about living people should be sourced. I said BLP doesn't apply when there are sources (meaning the exception is met). Some of the list was unsourced, and I agree it needed cleaning up. The AfD was not obvious, it was open less than 24 hours, certainly before I had a chance to weigh in, it probably would have generated extremely lengthy discussion. Only the people who were online at the time saw it. While there are a lot of "deletes", there are also a lot of people (like me) watching that page, who would have come in and tried to keep it. The AfD was starting to show some good advice for cleaning the page up (like removing the redlinks). Nardman1 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    Some? I'd give a quick estimate that less than one in twenty names had a reference. Statements like "Odeh, Mohammed Sadiq, convicted Embassy bomber" and "Tebourski, Adel, jailed for helping in the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood," when unaccompanied by a reliable source, are negative comments, and are exactly what BLP is meant to facilitate the nuking of. Picaroon (Talk) 04:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak endorse deletion. I normally find it hard to support SNOW deletions, but when this many people call for speedy deletion, it's really hard to say that it should be overturned. - Amarkov moo! 04:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral for now, specifically because I don't know the nature of the situation. BLP states that admins can speedy delete pages if there is no NPOV point to revert it to. But from what Nardman1 is saying, it looks like there was at least some cited info such that the unsourced material could have just been removed. Plus, "Baleete then Burninate" is not a vote. Rockstar( T/ C) 05:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
None of the individual listings cited a reliable source. None! The article just listed one dubious "external resource". The whole thing was an OR-violating BLP-violating mess. According to the deletion log, KFP looked for a BLP-compliant version and couldn't find one. Moreschi Talk 10:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. Just took a look at the Google cache. Ouch. Rockstar ( T/ C) 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion - this nomination is process for the sake of process. The list was a completely unsourced, BLP nightmare. The deleter had every right to delete on sight, even if the AfD hadn't been rapidly snowballing towards an inevitable delete. Keeping this much unsourced material is to the massive detriment of Wikipedia. There is no reason why this cannot be recreated citing reliable sources, but reliable sources it must cite. It cited none! As someone else pointed out "alleged" is surely the utlimate weasel word, at any rate. Moreschi Talk 09:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn Proper process not followed. This is barely in the purview of WP:BLP as it is a list. The AfD was interrupted in the middle (bad form) I recommend undeleting and letting the AfD run its course. Seems to me that some of these listings are probably sourceable via various news source archives, and the speedy delete seems to me to also be symptomatic of censorship, which of course everyone knows Wiki Admins don't do, so of course we should avoid looking like we do. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's a list of people, not a list of cats or dogs. Of course WP:BLP applies. Moreschi Talk 11:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
    • On the other hand (thinking about this as I did the trash), given that aside from Rockstar915, I'm the only one who seems to disagree with otherwise full consensus, and my objections are purely rule-based, this might be (assuming no other overturns) a perfect time to use WP:IAR to good effect. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Thank you! The other thing worth bearing in mind is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we don't really do rules for the sake of rules, or process for the sake of process. As you note, this is a good time to use IAR - quite apart from common sense. We might as well endorse the deletion here, with no prejudice against recreation from reliable sources. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 12:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Well, I won't IAR my own opinion, and since I've been around the block a few times by now with DRV, it's still my contention that it's misrepresented as a process review only, but until the time that it's also represented on the project page as reviewing articles themselves for content (i.e. a second or de facto XfD, depending on when in the process the DRV is fired), I'll keep my own opinion as is (because that's my opinion), and the closing admin can definitely use IAR with my good wishes if it's the only overturn. -- MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion 1) this contained uncited negative material, and had no earlier version to revert to. Thus it is speediable per WP:BLP 2) it was on AfD for a while, and there was agreement that it infringed WP:BLP 3) this is what categories are for.-- Docg 12:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This list contained more than two hundred names of "alleged members", of which four had accompanying external links as sources and only one of these links actually worked. Additionally, there was a link to the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism website in an "external links" section. Apart from these, the list itself had no sources, and dozens of the listed names didn't have an accompanying article. Also, the criteria for inclusion on this list was unclear: "Alleged"? By whom? The situation would be complicated even if each allegation was backed up by a reliable source. The list entries had comments like "convicted of terrorism and fraud (or was he?)" and "(there is a lot of controversy over whether or not he really is an Al-Qaeda member)". These are not acceptable, and we already have Category:Al-Qaeda members. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 15:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion, and of course BLP applies here, as it would with any list or categorization involving living people, especially when the categorization is potentially contentious or harmful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, lawsuit waiting to happen. Will ( is it can be time for messages now plz?) 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion. "Alleged". Enough said. Guy ( Help!) 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to proper sourced recreation. I don't know whether a recreation (even if sourced) is a good idea, but it certainly would not fall under the scope of this recent AfD or WP:CSD#G4. Though the article was not speedy-able, there was consensus for deletion at XfD and this was a relatively appropriate application of WP:SNOW. -- Black Falcon ( Talk) 00:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion "alleged" is the word that makes it Sleep On It 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion Agree BLP fully applies. Per BLP unsourced material was deletable on sight, and that was virtually the entirety of the article, so even allowing it to go to AfD was more process than was due in the first place. This is the last place to be thinking about process for process's sake. False appearances on terrorist lists has caused enormous damage to the lives of real people. The encyclopedia has a responsibility to the public not to allow the publication of rumors to cause harm. It would be irresponsible to undelete a virtually unsourced list like this. -- Shirahadasha 06:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse As said earlier, possibly recreation with more citations could make this viable for the future. For now though, doesn't cut it. Bulldog123 14:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_5&oldid=1142499193"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE