Boston Tea Party (political party) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I contend that this article adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines, and that the argument that it does not resolve problems brought up in AfD has no grounds. Arthur Rubin, the admin who deleted the article, said "Take it to WP:DRV, if you disagree", thereby indicating that he has no wish to discuss the matter with me. I have never discussed anything with Arthur Rubin. -- Isaiah Sage 08:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sustain denial of speedy This is a recreated article, Gwen Gale declined a G4 on the basis that sources have been added; the key source added was from the Miami Herald. and it included the information that its presidential candidate "is on the ballot in Florida, Tennessee and Colorado and a write-in candidate in more than 10 other states. It is the first time his party has had a presidential nominee". Since the deletion rationale was on the basis that nothing had been proven beyond mere existence, the new article meets the test for resolving the problem. I suppose a new AfD could be started, but I think it would quite possibly be kept. DGG ( talk) 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. This does not fix the fundamental problem that the party is of no significance whatsoever, as reflected by a profound lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep the article - coverage in the sources presented in the current iteration of the article demonstrate notability. I agree that it's thin and I would like to see one more fairly substantial source at least but what's there is sufficient. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/keep per the October 31, 2008 Associated Press article which constitutes non-trivial coverage from an independent reliable source. [1] the skomorokh 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/Keep as the New Statesman and AP (via the Miami Herald) articles are on-topic, in some depth, and from reliable third-party sources so the notability and verifiability thresholds are met. - Dravecky ( talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/keep due to addition of independent sources. This political party has received some coverage in independent sources, and about 12 million people are going to see it listed on a November 4 presidential ballot (or already saw it, if they voted early). I think some of them might wonder what this party is about and want to look it up. That's an area in which Wikipedia can be helpful. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn/Keep Reliable and verifiable independent sources establish notability. Alansohn ( talk) 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, the existance of multiple, non-trivial sources would indicate to me that this would possibly pass an AfD. As such, I do not feel it is suitable for speedy deletion. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC). reply
• Endorse deletion; although not invited here, I think the article would still fail a new AfD for the same reasons as the previous one. It's not technically a "re-creation" of a deleted article, as it has different sources which only have a passing mention of the Party, but I think it should be deleted under G4. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Caliper Corporation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is similar to many other company pages, & we feel it is not blatant advertising. It was specifically written to provide information only. The administrator who deleted this noted on his talk page that he would try and review this, but never did, [2] and his talk page states that he rarely has time to manage his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecographer ( talk • contribs) 20:58, October 31, 2008

• Comment - is this in reference to the company at caliper.com? -- Suntag ☼ 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• All of the nominator's/creator's edits involve adding a mention to the corporation whose article was deleted. And who's "we"? MER-C 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• 'Question - Does your company meet the notability guidelines for corporations? If yes, please explain how it does (providing sources helps your case out). If you can, we can help you recreate the article. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 05:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The article was not speedied as A7, no indication of notability; it was speedied as G11, entirely promotional. I've looked at the article, and it has no promotional material or language whatever, just a description of the company. Invalid speedy, regardless of notability. Burt there is a reluctance here to restore articles even after improper speedies if the subject is very likely not to be notable. Now, the references included a third party full signed review from Infoworld with the headline "Maptitude offers unbeatable mapping value for Windows". Maptitude is one of their main products; I consider this a perfectly adequate indication that the company might be notable, enough to pass speedy at any rate.. The company's home page contains the information that a number of states including Alaska and Hawaii used their primary more expensive product as their principal planning software, another good indication of notability. Unfortunately, the article left this information to the references, and neglected to mention it in the text. If anyone had bothered to check the references they would have been able to offer simple advice on how to improve the article sufficiently. I think it'll pass our notability standards after that, particular with the addition of reviews of their other products. I see no reason to send it to AfD if they are added. I note the admin who deleted this did it without prior nomination, a practice that ought to be forbidden at least for G11 and A7, where the concurrence of 2 people make for more reliable decisions. As for the question sure to be raised about asking him the talk p. has the message that that postings left for him are unlikely to be replied to quickly--he is actually around and responding promptly, but a newcomer might have talked that warning at its literal word. I am also concerned that some commentators above may not have examined the material either. DGG ( talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I can't examine the material, so thanks to DGG for summarizing it and overturn based on the above. Paxse ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse 100% valid A7, also WP:SPA / WP:COI / G11 concerns, but fundamentally the fact is that this article made absolutely no assertion of the significance of the company and neither does the requester above, who states merely that (a) it exists and (b) other crap exists on Wikipedia. Neither is persuasive. There were two "references", both of which were trade body directories. Guy ( Help!) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - as per Guy I've read the deleted article and see just a simple "I am here" stub about a company that asserts zero significance. Whether Speedy G11 or A7 is not really relevant...I would have speedy A7'd this as well - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - In view of the above, the Speedy Deletion was appropriate under A7. The deleting admin need not be correct in the speedy deletion reason listed in the deletion. So long as any of the speedy deletion reasons apply, the speedy deletion was valid. -- Suntag ☼ 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I'm also at a disadvantage here not being able to read the deleted article, but if it contained a reference to the Infoworld source linked above then it certainly wasn't an A7 - the reference itself is an indication of importance/significance as required by A7 - and nobody seems to be arguing that a G11 was valid. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy-deletion and list to AfD. I am deeply skeptical that this organization will meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for companies, especially given the conflict of interest issues raised above. But those are questions best sorted out through community discussion. I can see the arguments in support of speedy-deletion under criterion A7 but think that this case is close enough to the line that discussion is required. Looking at the last deleted version, I can not support the assertion that the page qualified under G11, though. "Blatant" advertising is a substantially higher standard than we saw here. Rossami (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG, list at AfD if desired. If I could see it, I might say otherwise, but given that at least one admin thinks it isn't a valid speedy, it should come to everyone. Hobit ( talk) 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

AFD wasn't given the full 5 day period (it was closed the same day it opened) even though the opinions of the commenters were still all over the places. Mgm| ^(talk) 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The AfD did run for 5 days - it was relisted once. No other issues of procedure are raised.  Sandstein  20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I couldn't find where the topic was closed. Please post diffs to show that it was closed the same day it opened. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Not sure how I feel about this one yet (I haven't read the AfD), but it was created on the 25th and was closed on the 31st. That's five days. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Not sure how I managed to botch that. Still, I disagree with the assesment there was concensus. - Mgm| ^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - though I agree with Mgm about the lack of consensus. I argued to keep myself. However, 5 days were up and there are a HELL of a lot of AfDs these days. Some poor bugger has to close them all. I approached the closing/deleting admin afterward and explained the logic for leaving both articles as a redirect (easy for browsers using the 'pedia). S/He agreed and very politely left them both as redirects instead of deleting. Mgm, that was your vote - you won! (and convinced me as well :) Paxse ( talk) 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, but there is probably material to be had, at least in Swedish sources, and a proper article describing his life can be written. The illegitimate sons of monarchs usually do play a significant role--since he died in his 30s as a Merchant in china, he probably does have a notable career at least as a merchant. DGG ( talk) 17:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

My thoughts exactly - but I couldn't find (or read) the sources to do it during the AfD. The redirect leaves expansion as an option later. Paxse ( talk) 17:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Should history restoration be put on the table? While the redirect is probably the best choice until the putative sources can be found, having the history readily available might make recreation easier if warranted. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn It should have been closed as no conesnous to delete probably, and IMO, a redirect (keeping history) would have been enough as sources would seem likely to exist. But just on the bounds of admin discretion. Also, if the closer had explained a bit about his/her thoughts on the arguments rather than just stated an opinion which was (as I read it) "just not notable" I'd be happier here. Hobit ( talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment as AFD closing admin - no objections with the history, such as it is, being restored behind a redirect, although there is nothing there that isn't in the Oscar I article already. Also no objections if someone can find more sources to produce an expanded article on either Max or the other son and wants to recreate it. fish& karate 09:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, as no indication has been made as to how the deletion process was not followed. Stifle ( talk) 12:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The nom has indicted that "Still, I disagree with the assesment there was consensus". Hobit ( talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Two "keep"s, both of which failed to show how the article passed WP:BIO, or WP:PEOPLE, and five "delete"s - that's a consensus to delete, Hobit. fish& karate 11:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Glimcher Realty Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Speedy deleted as A7/G11. Contained a valid assertation of notability by citing a couple sources and asserting notability with "As of 2007, the company's properties consisted of 23 malls (with a total leasable area of 20.6 million square feet), and four community centers (with a total leasable area of 1 million square feet).". Furthermore, I'm finding plenty of sources online, and almost all of their properties seem notable enough for a page. Deleting admin has been asked about this back on the 24th by another editor and doesn't seem to have responded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• List at AFD. I'm not convinced they're notable, but the speedy deletion seems inappropriate. Notability is asserted, and the tone doesn't seem spammy to me. And if TenPoundHammer is right that there are sources out there, then it shouldn't have a problem with surviving an AFD. Umbralcorax ( talk) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Never mind. The deleting admin restored the article. Consider the DRV closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, okay then. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:College radio stations in Oregon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore | cache))

A similar category from a different state was listed for a minor change at WP:CfD. That discussion turned into a blanket discussion of all college-radio-station-by-state categories; with minimal discussion and no notification to other WikiProjects or the category creator, it was determined to delete the categories. I don't see any fault in this situation, but merely an unfortunate collection of coincidental circumstances that led to a decision without sufficient notification or discussion. It's my hope that this DRV is relatively uncontroversial, and that a relisting will result in a more robust discussion. Pete ( talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Note discussion at Category talk:College radio stations in Oregon.

Further note: the original CfD was here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 25#Category:College radio stations in Georgia

• Relist and notify all interested parties, as nom. I don't have a very strong opinion about whether or not the category should exist, but there are compelling points of view from parties who were unaware of the original decision. - Pete ( talk) 01:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Relist so this discussion can bring some closure and the limited time and attention of both projects involved (and all other interested parties) can be returned to productive efforts. - Dravecky ( talk) 02:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete first to maintain the status quo and Relist - First, if you look at the deletion log, the cat was originally deleted per some sort of rule propagated by a WikiProject. Only later was it mentioned that some how there was a CFD. ALong those lines, this category was never listed at CFD, it was merely mentioned. It is analogous to in an AFD about person A, and then person B who has the same attribute is mentioned in the AFD and some people at the AFD say it too should probably be deleted. Then that's it. Nobody lists the article about person B at the AFD nor is a notice placed on the article to inform people that, "hey people are discussing so lets all get together and discuss this because we are hoping to create WP:CONSENSUS in a transparent manner". This way people who might be familiar with person B can come in and at least have the opportunity to make the case why person B is different from person A and should not be deleted. Otherwise we are allowing for collateral attacks on cats/articles instead of striving for community WP:CONSENSUS through actual debate with the community, and the community needs notice in order to participate, which didn't happen in this case. Aboutmovies ( talk) 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The Radio Wikiproject was aware of this. [3] Seeing as there were discussions at the project and CFD, relisting is not necessary. -- Kbdank71 17:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I wasn't clear in the nomination: it's WikiProject Oregon that wasn't notified, as well as Aboutmovies ( talk · contribs) who created the category. From what I can tell, it's not required that related WikiProjects and category creators be notified, but in this case, the lack of notification caused a significant perspective to be left out of the discussion. - Pete ( talk) 18:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Kdbank71, may I ask that if a group of a couple people get together and decide something should be deleted, then one of those people can just go ahead and delete something without going through the formal processes outlined at AFD and CFD? Aboutmovies ( talk) 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

AM, can you double-check what you wrote there? I can't understand the question. - Pete ( talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Three people decide something should be deleted. One of those people then deletes that. Never is the item properly listed via the formal process outlined for that type of item (AFD/CFD). Is that proper? Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Category:College radio stations in Georgia was listed at CfD at 01:49, 25 May 2008. Category:College radio stations in Oregon was added to that CfD 01:46, 27 May 2008 and the CfD was closed 22:50, 5 June 2008. Since all the !votes were consistent and sufficient time was alloted to consider Category:College radio stations in Oregon, Category:College radio stations in Oregon fate was properly decided by the Category:College radio stations in Georgia CfD. In other words, Category:College radio stations in Oregon was validly upmerge at CfD (assuming that Category:College radio stations in Oregon was properly tagged with a CfD deletion notice - something an admin can verify for this DRV). CfD suggests, but does not require, personal CfD notifications. I do not see any procedural flaws in the CfD. The 23 October 2008 speedy deletion of the above category by Bearcat was supported by G4. -- Suntag ☼ 21:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• That's the problem, the Oregon cat was not tagged, as is outlined at the RFC noted above. Thus the big problem here. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the CfD as to Category:College radio stations in Oregon and Overturn the 23 October 2008 G4 speedy deletion. - Per Aboutmovies's 21:30, 31 October 2008 post above, [4] Category:College radio stations in Oregon main page was not tagged on or near 27 May 2008 with {{subst:cfd}}, {{subst:cfm|OtherCategory}}, or {{subst:cfr|ProposedName}} as required by CfD Procedures. Since the notice portion of the CfD process was not followed, the CfD was not valid for Category:College radio stations in Oregon. -- Suntag ☼ 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Relist – (assuming the Oregon cat was not tagged) it's a requirement to tag a category before deletion via cfd. (The linked cfd discussion is by no means unanimous anyway.) It's not clear to me why WikiProject Oregon is deemed to be subservient to WP:RADIO in this matter. Occuli ( talk) 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

And it's not clear to me why other people are deeming WP:ORE as having precedence over WP:RADIO in this matter. Bearcat ( talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

And on a semi-related note and just for the record, it's WP:WPRS (the Radio Stations project) not WP:RADIO (the Radio project) in the mix here. - Dravecky ( talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Bearcat why do you think people are deeming the ORE as having precedence? Is it because the person you are replying to said "assuming the Oregon cat was not tagged"? I believe they are simply pointing out that the Georgia cat was tagged, and if the Oregon one was not, then the Oregon one could not be deleted as it was not tagged, you know per the instructions on how CFD works. And at the time if you had simply followed through in finding the best way by working with other wikiprojects to find a good way to categorize (say WP:ORE and WP:UNI who would be the other "stakeholders" if you will with the cats), then all this could have been hashed out in a normal CFD months ago. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

At a guess, Bearcat is referencing the edit summaries left by the editor that recreated this category where this sentiment was expressed, albeit in a confusingly contradictory manner. In any case, while I know that WP:NME is only an essay, not policy, I find it ironic that this specific case is clearly address: "Subcategories by genre, network or ownership group may also be created (e.g. Category:College radio stations in the United States, Category:CTV network stations). However, do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories — for instance, do not create third-level subcategories for "College radio stations in Oregon" or "CTV network stations in Ontario"." - Dravecky ( talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

First then what does Bearcat's edit summary "‎deleted "Category:College radio stations in Oregon" ‎ (per Radio Stations Wikiproject, format categories aren't broken down by state.)" mean when he deleted the category in the first place mean in the context of project superiority? That summary is exactly why my subsequent edit summary said what it said. And as explained in detail at the RFC, Bearcat has been informed about the intention and meaning of that summary (which no project has superiority). Further, if you like I can point you to an AFD or two that shows I have been advocating prior to this radio issue that WikiProject rules mean little as they can conflict with others, thus they should not be used to justify deletions as Bearcat explicitly did.

Second, then how does breaking down radio station by state not violate your "do not combine geographical and non-geographical subcategories"? Radio station=not geographical, state=geographical. Aboutmovies ( talk) 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Very large categories of a basic type are routinely broken down on national and, in some cases, significant sub-national divisions but what is strongly discouraged is a third-level subcategory such as the one under discussion here. - Dravecky ( talk) 02:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment I can confirm the category was not tagged. I double-checked the edit history, and nothing about adding a tag is there. - Pete ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Since admin Pete confirmed the lack of CfD notice on the category page, that establishes that the CfD was not valid for Category:College radio stations in Oregon. -- Suntag ☼ 18:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC) reply