Sierra Vista Mall‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The article was closed as Keep even though there was obvious consensus to keep 11/3. While some of the deletes are obviously WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a couple of the keeps weren't vaild neither WP:IMPORTANT. The reason why the article was kept was because nobody rebutted Kappa agruement, but if you look further down, I did by showing that all of those sources are obviously too local, many of them trivial, like "Sierra Vista Mall will hold a community outreach fair at 10 am", thus not really independent of the topic (anything, even local resturants, apartment buildings, nursing homes, local politicians (which fail WP:BIO btw, supermarkets, etc can have that many local sources). WP:HEY doesn't apply nither as the only thing added was an infobox, and the spam wasn't removed. Overturn and Delete Jbeach56 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn As one who commented in the AfD discussion, I stand by my argument that is completely, totally, and utterly spam. The only source cited is a mall pamphlet. The other source(s?) are local, but local notability is not enough to keep an article. The argument to keep was based on a couple of mentions in the Fresno Bee, but local notability is not enough to keep. I honestly can't believe that is was kept, even though there were 11 Delete comments and 3 Keep comments. NASCAR Fan24^{( radio me!)} 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• 'Endorse keeping... there are 1,250 potential sources ( Fresno Bee, etc.) People will want encyclopedic information on this mall, we can provide it... there's no benefit in deleting this article. -- W.marsh 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Good close. Most of the votes were garbage parroting, anyways. Notability has been established. --- RockMFR 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't see no notabilty established in the article, unless you think that adding an infobox helps claim notabilty. Again the sources are too local, no sources outside of the city newspaper, and it's only for local interest. Jbeach56 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Well, only a tiny percentage of people who go to any mall will be non-locals (according to this book). At any rate, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... there's no reason to deny an accurate article that's useful to only 1% of our readers. Eventually all those 1%s add up and we're not useful to any of our readers. -- W.marsh 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Question- If we expand upon your idea that local Citations are not good enough, should we remove all Think Tanks (that have an office in D.C.) from Articles about U.S. Politics because they are too local ? Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C•} 03:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
        • That's unreasonable. Just because an argument doesn't work when it is taken to extremes doesn't mean the argument by itself doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the analogy doesn't even hold since Think Tanks have large scale effects on both domestic and foreign policy. JoshuaZ 13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Thats my point, if it does not work at the extream, why is it valid on the smaller scale? I mean no argument in this discussion, I mearly want to point out that the idea that too local as a reason, is not valid either. Soley based on the street address of the citation (Think Tank/Newspaper/etc), it can be dismissed as invalid and unworthy of being a source of information? Where does too local end? This entire path of logic will be bad news for Categories like Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_Toronto that are compleatly structured around local notability. Exit2DOS2000^{• T• C•} 04:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• endorse close Dear God, I can't stand articles about malls. The're idiotic and the coverage is highly generic and routine not very different than marriage and baby announcements. Gah. . But yeah the sources seem to exist in this case which is enough to satisfy WP:N so leave it alone. (it would be nice if someone would, you know, actually add them to the article). JoshuaZ 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC) After looking at the sources in more detail I'm no longer convinced they are non-trivial enough to be included per WP:N. Abstaining for now. JoshuaZ 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, consensus to delete was evident. Only one argument to "keep" (Kappa's) had any weight to it, the other two being fluff involving a) using a glossy se-lf produced leaflet as an indicator of notability, and b) "malls are inherently notable". Neil  ☎ 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. At best this should have been closed no consensus but even that would be a stretch. Kappa's sources do indeed seem to refute the idea that the mall has no sources to establish notability, but to allow a single argument to trump several others (some of which explicitly stated that said sources were insufficient to establish notability) seems to fly in the face of "consensus". ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 14:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion was clear where were the WP:RS that this meets WP:N. The article has none and when someone goes to find them, they will find the same ones that would if taken at face value make any and every restaurant, laundramat, and gas station notable: yellow pages, local papers talking up the businesses that place ads in them, etc. C'mon, we're not paper but we're not the yellow pages either. Carlossuarez46 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, clear consensus to delete here. There's one keep argument with any substance at all (the others are various ATA that misquote WP:N), but that's it. Not even close to "no consensus", either. -- Core desat 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per W.marsh. Tim Q. Wells 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete, the issue of sourcing was specifically addressed and found lacking, even after Kappa found some sourcing. I tend to agree that those sources are mainly trivial and mentions in passing, and that they are insufficient for an encyclopedia article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. Clear comments are made that the mall has no notable sources. Primary Criterion makes clear that "newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours" are not reliable sources. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I would have closed as no consensus, but the effect is the same as keep. There is no basis for overturning. Articles like this have been treated inconsistently at Afd. The people who think this an automatic delete should instead work to change the policy on malls. DGG ( talk) 22:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, clear consensus at afd, not within closer discretion. All sources put forward are either unreliable, or both biased and utterly lacking in substance. Impossible to create a neutral article without original research. — Cryptic 22:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete - clear consensus for deletion. More importantly, there is nothing in the article to source any notability whatsoever; existence is not enough. TerriersFan 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer - Quick searches such as Google news, Google books, and Google scholar are part of an AfD. In this case, Kappa expressly posted the searches that supported the assertion the the topic passes WP:N with a great deal of press coverage of the topic throughout its history. I did not give much weight to the idea that all 1,250 potential sources are too local, that their being too local is obvious, that many of the 1,250 potential sources are trivial. Of course, if many of the 1,250 potential sources are trivial, then the remaining sources are not trivial, which supports the keep consensus of that discussion. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Article asserted here repeated references to Valtio on Radio Finland, and apparently in the Helsingin sanomat newspaper, which seems sufficient basis for claim of notability. If it is chosen that the article not be restored completely, I would request userfication, so that I can attempt to find sufficent sources to prove the subject's notability. John Carter 16:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn One of the more notable micronations - mentioned in reliable and independent sources. I think that's enough to pass WP:N. Its head of state has also gained an audience with the Estonian, French, and Brazilian ambassadors to Finland. NASCAR Fan24^{( radio me!)} 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, it's imaginary - that's pretty much asserting non-notability. If overturned this wouldn't survive AFD as it lacks multiple independent sources. -- Core desat 22:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Probably should be overturned but note: not because it is a "memorable micronation" or because of any cultural or "diplomatic" matter, but because it is (or seems to be) a notable comedy hoax creation. The Finnish wikipedia has an article on it, categorized under "Humor". However the article does needs a serious rewrite to reflect it is not a "micronation", but a comedy/humor item. FT2 ^{( Talk | email)} 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse overturn. Article needs more detail and additional sources, but it's certainly real and worthy of documentation in WP. -- Gene_poole 07:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The article starts "Valtio is an imaginary micronation started by Ari Peltonen" sets the tone. Whether hoaxes are proper speedies has been debated; I usually send them to afd, but this wouldn't survive there so why waste everyone's time and extend the drama. The representatives of any fake micronation can be refused audiences at embassies and otherwise subjected to the same treatment as Mr. Peltonen would in his personal capacity and there is no indication that any of the events described (a) happened; (b) were reported in a reliable source; or (c) were events involving Valtio or just plain old Mr. Peltonen. I have been to embassies, if I start Suarezia as my micronation and go to some more, do I and Suarezia get articles, too. I hope not. Carlossuarez46 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Please note that Peltonen also received audiences with three heads of state. That may well qualify as notable, I believe. Also, I have attempted an automatic translation of the source, but found the results to be, basically, incoherent. I have asked the editors of the Finland WikiProject to review the reference and comment here. I hope that one does so soon. John Carter 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Really? Do you have a reliable source for that he "received audiences with three heads of state" in the capacity of leader of his country, like a summit, or just that some heads of state have sufficient time in their schedules to have meetings with interesting people with gripes. If it was a leader-to-leader meeting, some mention must have been made by the media of the (real) country in question - most heads of state like to promote their international meetings especially summits. The distinct lack of any of these mentions belies the claim. Carlossuarez46 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Response' - Evidently, it was indicated in the article which I am seeking translation to. And, yes, as indicated in the article linked to, the subject is repeatedly mentioned, evidently on Radio Finland. The argument that the creator of the article did not cite those sources, as stated above, is seemingly a fallacious one, as by my reading the creator of the article seems to be more of a Finnish speaker than otherwise. Also, frankly, I sincerely question whether the editor himself has necessarily sought out every possible source for every article he has ever written, and referenced them accordingly. Like I said, I think we would be best served waiting for a translation of the article which is lsited as a source. John Carter 21:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion until such time as an English translation of the supporting articles is available. No objection to userfying per John Carter to await proper sources. EdJohnston 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Hmm... The only good online source I can find for this is the Ruotuväki article at http://www.mil.fi/ruotuvaki/?action=read_page&pid=96&aid=1556 (Ruotuväki is the official newspaper of the Finnish Defence Forces). That article seems to pretty much support the content of Valtio. Apparently the topic has also been covered on Radio Helsinki (Mr. Peltonen's employer) and "Nyt", the weekly supplement of Helsingin Sanomat (which owns Radio Helsinki)... -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I believe the page from the Finnish Defense Forces is in fact the source cited for the old article. Personally, regardless of whether the nation itself is thought of as a joke or not, I have to think that the military operation which seems to be described on that page to "retake" Valtio qualifies it as notable enough to have a separate article. Still waiting for some help with the translation, though. I do note however that the above editor is from Finland, and states in his comment that the content of the cited source seems to support the content of the now-deleted article. John Carter 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedied as a hoax, but hoaxes can not be speedied. WP:CSD is unambiguously clear about this. the admin who deleted it should reread deletion policy.I doubt it will stand, but it has to go to afd. So should those who support the deletion. DGG ( talk) 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list - CSD A7 doesn't apply to fantasy countries ( Micronations) and none of the other speedy deletes apply. WP:SPEEDY#Non-criteria is clear that hoaxes are not subject to speedy delete. Problem hoaxes might tip the speedy delete consensus scale, but a fantasy country is not a hoax and this was not a problem article. Fantasy countries can meet WP:N, and the article did cite to Mäkäräisten Valtio. This fantasy country has only been around a year, but is headed by a known comedian who seems good a generating publicity. AfD might be a better place to discuss the article, particularly since the references probably are in Swedish or Finish. Comment Hufvudstadsbladet is the highest-circulation Swedish-language newspaper in Finland. Their September 29, 2007 article entitled "Really bad music" (RIKTIGT DÅLIG MUSIK), has a few sentences on "Valtio" and Ari Paska Peltonen, who the article says is a radio DJ, journalist , author, and comedian. This article mentions Ari "Paska" Peltonen. In the deleted article, there was Mäkäräisten Valtio, a posting on the Finnish Defense Forces website. Citing that source, the deleted article says "19th of June, 2007 the Finnish Defence Forces newspaper Ruotuväki send a group of soldiers to take back the territory claimed back by Valtio." However, I couldn't confirm via the Finnish to English translator. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Troll (Warcraft) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Speedy deletion was inappropriate. It would have been appropriate to open an AFD for this instead of speedy. If the content was to be merged into a more appropriate article, that can't be done now, as the content is gone. Yng varr 11:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and if necessary list at AfD. An article of this length and having lasted so long ought to have been taken to AfD even if it met speedy deletion criteria, and I do not think this one does: the deleting admin argued correctly that it was too much 'in universe' but this is not a speedy deletion criteria. A7 does not cover fictional characters. Sam Blacketer 11:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn consensus has never supported applying A7 to fiction, and even if it did, being a part of a notable work would be a claim of importance. -- W.marsh 14:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn major creature/race from an extremely major series of games. Definitely not a speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Molly_DBO (www.mollypages.org/dbo) is a open-source, free, java O/R mapping framework. The deletion reason for Molly_DBO was (as far as I can tell) lack of relevance to wikipedia. This does not make sense to me.

Note, similar O/R frameworks (such as Hibernate) have wiki pages, so it CANNOT be said that information about programming and java frameworks are not consistent with wikipedia. Molly_DBO has no commercial or spam or adult content at all, it was just a informational blurb on a non-commercial O/R framework, please undelete. Javadesigner2 03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment from the closer. The article made no attempt to assert any notability. Nothing about why this product does anything more then exist. The primary reason for objecting to the deletion appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Being an 'informational blurb' is not in and of itself a reason for an article to exist. Vegaswikian 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

but it was deleted as Spam, and that does not seem to apply, as the article was a plain straightforward description. "Molly DBO [website http://www.mollypages.org/dbo] is an Object Relational mapping tool for Java. It takes a thin-layer over JDBC approach and handles all database transactions in the database itself. Each table in the database is instantiated as a corresponding Java object." Notability is another matter, and it should go straight to afd. DGG ( talk) 17:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually it was deleted as a7 and g11. That a7 was for 'No claim of notability'. Vegaswikian 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

But computer programs are not among the classes of things that can be deleted via A7: real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content . Still no valid speedy criterion. DGG ( talk) 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It doesn't seem to assert notability and may be spam, based on how the article is worded. NASCAR Fan24^{( radio me!)} 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, there does not appear to be any assertion of notability, the article might well be spam, and is definitely well below stub status. Not a legitimate article on many levels. -- Kinu ^t/ _c 01:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Booting (chat room slang) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

4 keep to 5 delete seems like no consensus, not delete Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse for now Find some refs first and I will definitely support undeleting the article. Or how about putting into List of Internet slang? hbdragon88 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Not really a slang term... well sort of, but not really? :[] — xDanielx ^T/ _C 06:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Assuming the closing admin weighed the strengths of the arguments rather than the numbers of votes (and no argument has been presented that he/she did not), Endorse. CIreland 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Maybe just redirect to Boot (disambiguation), since it has the definition of what an IRC boot is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but support redirecting to List of Internet slang phrases, where it has a definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - seems to be a dictionary definition. I'd also like to dispute any article with the name "booting", when "kick" likely predates it, being from IRC and mentioned in RFC1459 from May 1993, but I'm not sure an article could be written that's not much more than a dictionary definition. - Halo 15:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Booting is not as prevalent as the term " kick" - that's what Norton is thinking of. Also, AFD != straw poll.-- WaltCip 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and redirect to Boot - at least there's a definition there. NASCAR Fan24^{( radio me!)} 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I stand by my comments. Do not redirect; no one would search for Booting (chat room slang). i  ^said 01:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Afd is not a vote, and the DRV's premise is a misapplication of policy. Notwithstanding that, in my viewpoint, the closer got this right. I also tend to agree with User:i, that no one would search for this term in this way, so redirect seems unneeded. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per nom, no consensus. Tim Q. Wells 04:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per everyone else and zorch the beyond-useless disambiguated redirects nominator re-created from here and from Booting (chat room) (where the article was moved during the afd). — Cryptic 06:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my deletion, and it would've been nice had the nominator at least spoken to me before setting up a DRV, or notified me of the DRV. This aside, when looking through the arguments, one thing stands out—those arguing to "keep and reference" did not provide even a hint of how such referencing might be possible, let alone any actual reference material. Lacking such material, the article would be a case of original synthesis based upon what one has personally experienced or seen, and without references that problem would be unfixable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No redirect, "Booting (chat room slang)" is an unlikely search term. And afd is not a vote. Crazysuit 21:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Police 911 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

This article was deleted in August 2007 for being unreferenced, POV, and incoherent. I'm not sure what the original article said, but the game does exist; GameFAQs has an entry on it, and I've played it myself (I posted a review on that site; oops, WP:COI! As for the other two reasons – not a good reason for deletion, it can always be cleaned up, and here, I'm willing to clean it up. The only reason why I ask now is because I was just reviewing Police 911 and found it awkward that both the original and the sequel were in one article. hbdragon88 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation, possible speedy close. There's no usable content in the article (it is indeed incoherent), but there's no reason not to create a proper sourced one. Chick Bowen 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Re-create - being unreferenced isn't really a reason for deletion, and if someone is willing to write it coherently and in a neutral POV, then there's no problem in recreating the article. NASCAR Fan24^{( radio me!)} 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply