Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 18

The Smith Bros. aka the BEATSMITHz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The Smith Bros. aka the BEATSMITHz page, should not have been deleted. They are a legitmate production team. It's not a fan site, it's an information site. If this is the case then all of the artists they've worked with, as internally linked and noted on the page, should be deleted also. [1][2][3] 70.18.210.95 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's not prejudice to recreation in this particular deletion, so go ahead and write an article that meets our guidelines. --Haemo 20:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above comment...Deletion allowed recreation. The page as it was would never meet WP standards. Smashville 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore This article should be put back upSgt. bender 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your reason is... ? Resurgent insurgent 04:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Should be put back up. If this one is so bad - look at Yummy Bingham, Patti Labelle , The Rolling Stones, STING, Britney Spears... perhaps if they could repost in the right catergory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; a look around is turning up nothing resembling reliable sources that would indicate these guys would meet WP:MUSIC, so the deletion seems to have been appropriate. If the folks arguing to restore can put an article together that includes reliable sources and can meet the guidelines, then fire away. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore reliable sources? The article included plenty, and many of them were referenced here in wikipedia. I typed their name in google and found another link too : [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. As Smashville points out the closing of the low-participation AfD does not carry with it prejudice against creation of an article on the subject - so by all means start a new article. Please make sure it is adequately referenced and not the overly-personalised piece which was deleted. Sam Blacketer 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the closer got this 100% correct; if you want to create it anew in user space, do so and bring it back here. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Go ahead and recreate it if you are willing to prove they are notable, but endorsing deletion here because they fail the notability guidelines for music. Also, 166, what does Patti LaBelle have to do with anything? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse fails WP:MUSIC. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply I was referring to Patti Labelle because after typing their name in google, her name popped up as a result of their published works. Which adds to the 'if they are' or 'who are they' argument. That's all that was meant by referencing her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by active status (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

If you look at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/October 2007#Wikipedians by active status, you'll see that a decision was made to delete the categories about active status. After two people agreed that the categories should go, they unleashed a bot that stripped every status template of their categories. OMG. I can't believe that two people can make a big decision that I think makes a really big change. They also left Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia as an orphan category. There was not enough input sought before making change. It should be reversed. --evrik ^(talk) 14:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A couple things. First, do you feel that the 5 and a half days of being posted was not long enough for potential discussion? (Noting that the categories were tagged when nominated.) 5 days is currently the minimum length of time of most XfD discussions (unless speedied). Second, thank you for pointing out that I missed one. I'll wait to nominate it, though, until after this DRV has been resolved. And finally, considering the fact that it is not uncommon for Wikipedians to abandon one account to edit with another, the right to vanish or the right to leave, as well as GoodBye, these categories are just an arbitrary list of usernames. And "whatlinkshere" will tell you who has the associated template applied to their userpage. - jc37 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary with the UCFD. The userboxes are still there, correct? So instead of each user page stating the user is not active, partially active, etc, twice, it only states it once? Don't see the issue. --Kbdank71 15:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. The discussion was open for >5 days, allowing sufficient opportunity for comment. I also don't see what the "really big change" is: editing a userbox to add or remove categorisation is something anyone can do... Procedurally, the discussion was carried out and in accordance with all relevant policies (Wikipedia:Category deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process). No arguments have been presented to justify the retention of the categories (either in the UCFD discussion or here). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse. There is nothing procedurally wrong with the discussion and this is how such matters are usually handled. Once a decision is made, it is perfectly permissible to use a bot to implement it. On the other hand, it is not clear to me that these categories are obviously valueless (and they are less useful for votestacking than many) so that in th face of opposition further discussion migh be appropriate. Eluchil404 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Xoloz below I am convinced that further discussion will be helpful. Eluchil404 02:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, that's how user categories are normally handled--by decisions of a small group, all opposed to most uses of such categories, in an obscure process with minimum input. Time to change the policies and--perhaps--require a poll of all users in the category, or some other way of getting sufficient attention from the interested. DGG (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to note that UCFD is linked at CFD, and is also on Template:Deletiondebates, which is on every XfD page. Low commenter turnout may just be that most people don't seem to care? - jc37 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct that UCFD discussions generally see a few comments by a relatively small group of editors (and it's important to note that the membership of that group is constantly changing), but it's the same situation at CFD. Most CFD discussions gather 2-4 comments, often from members of a core group of editors that work primarily or almost exclusively with categories (again, their composition is always in flux). This shouldn't really be an issue, since participation is not restricted in any way, it is mandatory to post the deletion notice on the category when initiating a discussion, and the format of WP:UCFD is nothing but user-friendly. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else worth noting is the general lack of interest toward UCFD discussions displayed by the creators of user categories. When they choose to participate in a discussion, they generally restrict their participation to the discussion for 'their' category only, almost completely ignoring every other category. The few exceptions include a disturbingly high proportion of instances where users paste the same message to several dozen discussions, irrespective of the nuances of each. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect people to come there to discuss primarily the categories they use, people ought to do just that--in the previous paragraph you too state they don't do so frequently enough. Multiple postings are often in response to multiple similar nominations. When I started visiting there occasionally, I received a post to my talk page questioning my participation. I do not exactly call that user-friendly. I still visit sometimes, (and don't always say keep) but how many new people would have continued after such a question from an established editor? DGG (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure to what comment you are referring, as I'm pretty sure that I've never posted to your talk page regarding UCFD (I found nothing in my contributions history). Am I missing something? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC) -- no, it was in fact someone not at the present discussion at all--I am sorry it sounded that way. I know very well you would not say something like that. DGG (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - not sure what else to say here. Straightforward close. Proper nom. Proper tagging. No objections. Decision made. The bot always does the category emptying, no big deal there. All UCFD and CFD resulting in Delete/Rename/Merge get actioned by bots. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - clear cut from what I can see. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. The close was entirely proper, but it appears that several interested editors missed the discussion. In view of the effort that would be involved, the categories would be kept deleted during the relisting. How to give greater publicity to the less active deletion fora is a question worthy of further discussion. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I would support your proposal since it encourages a more complete discussion. However, in this case, the 'interested editor' who missed the discussion (i.e. the nominator) has not offered any counterargument to the arguments for deletion. Further discussion would be useful only if there are certain arguments that were not considered by the original discussants. How can we strike a balance between the desire for a more complete discussion and the need to avoid setting a precedent for procedural relistings every time an interested or involved editor misses a deletion discussion? – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

based on the amount of notice, this will probably get other people as well. This is a significant group of categories, and we should get further assurance of consensus, if nothing else. If IAR applies to anything, it applies to technical proceedural issues like deadlines. DGG (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not going to haggle about procedure, because obviously the procedure was followed. I think that these were useful categories, as is Category:Wikipedians who have retired from editing Wikipedia which was orpahed and now nominated for CfD. I think that the categories were useful, and that they did no harm. Stripping them from as many templates as was done should be a sign that users found the categories useful. --evrik ^(talk) 04:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I'm not very committed to these categories, and I understand the argument that they are redundant -- WP has the boxes, so what use are the categories, exactly? However, these categories were frequently employed, and they could serve a valuable administrative function, albeit one that isn't on the tip of my mind. For instance, I wonder if the deletion of these affected Rickbot's daily updates of WP:LA? Given their prominence, I do feel more comments should be solicited. To answer Black Falcon's point... procedural relistings should only occur if it is reasonable to believe a large number of editors might wish to comment. A "reasonableness" standard permits relistings in cases where large administrative categories are at issue, but would tend to discourage more discussion where such discussion would be of interest only to a few, or arise solely for partisan reasons (as with the problematic identity categories lately so controversial. In this case, as an editor who has no attachment to these categories, I can see why they might attract widespread attention, given their administrative role. It is for this reason that I think more discussion is proper and warranted. These aren't the sort of categories that should inspire anyone's passion, but they are of the sort whose deletion might cause unintended consequence to the orderly management of Wikipedia's work. Xoloz 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but Relist for more input No procedural objections, but the ramifications of the deletion should be considered more carefully in light of the ubiquity of the categories. ~ trialsanderrors 12:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but Relist for more input per above. Also, even if these categories are deleted, I think it appropriate to permit recreating them so long as the recreated categories meet category requirements and the reasoning for their deletion is overcome. -- Jreferee t/c 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick van Aanholt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I figure that as a number of the Chelsea Reserve and Youth players have a profile page, van Aanholt is at least as notable as the others and therefore my submission from 10/10/07 should stand. 217.158.3.3 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD was done properly. The sole basis of the DRV seems to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Smashville 20:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If there are less notable players with bios, those should be deleted, not this one kept. No prejudice against recreation (and history restoration) if (or when) circumstances change, but he's not there yet. Eluchil404 05:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse easy 100% correct close. Not professional player, no other notability. If he does go pro, re-creation should be permitted (I don't think it's a protected title). Carlossuarez46 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation. This football player is not notable, though if he does become so, then definitely recreate. I also agree with Smashville - isn't the nom a textbook example of the "but other stuff like this exists!" argument? NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 00:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closing of the AfD was perfectly valid - not one person expressed an opinion to keep it. No valid arguments presented to overturn. If he ever becomes notable try again. Hut 8.5 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was the only one on Wikipedia that covers a political ideology in between conservatism and fascism. The Libertarian Nationalist Socialist Party proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a movement is indeed fact. Along with this is a link at www.theblacknationalist.com. This article was showing more than a usage of a term but a political entity that was correctly labeled. Therefore the article wasn't opinion but a restatement of what a certain political entity endorses. As far as covering all sides of ultraconservatism it could have at least have been edited for that.The point is I gave my part of what I knew on the subject with sources supporting my claim and I expected that others should have contributed to it by editing it. {There was even first hand sources from blogs if someone bothered to check it.What will a thing like this do for the researcher? Fact is there is almost a seperate section for every political belief except ultraconservatism—Preceding unsigned comment added by Statist0 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 October 2007

• Comment. The term is used in reliable sources and an article is probably possible, but this wasn't it--just a mini-essay espousing a particular opinion. Chick Bowen 03:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Write an actual neutral article (if possible) or place a redirect to conservatism or something, but Wikipedia isn't the place for polemic essays - it's not a soapbox. The nominator should probably be warned to that effect. --Coredesat 05:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Plenty of reliable source material for the topic. However, that would require letting the reliable source material dictate what gets into the article rather than pushing Ultraconservatism to mean what the Wikipedian desires it to mean. An article on Ultraconservatism would need to address all major aspects of the topic, not just one. Addressing one major aspect likely makes it WP:POV. -- Jreferee t/c 07:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of the OR article that was in place here. I have redirected to Conservatism, where any legitimate content could rightly be covered. Xoloz 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For reason I have already given at the creator's talk page, keep deleted (without prejudice to an encyclopedic article being written in the place of the redirect). - Mike Rosoft 14:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore clearly applicable to today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt. bender (talk • contribs)

• Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want something like this, try Urban Dictionary, or find several sources/cause for notability. Stephen Colbert is not one of them.--WaltCip 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and keep as a redirect to Conservatism. The deleted page was an essay by a single contributor outlining their own views (soapboxing), but the term has wider implications which are properly discussed in the Conservatism article. Sam Blacketer 08:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Apparently an admin speedily deleted this article on his own. However, I have not seen any valid WP:CSD motivation for the deletion. This article deserves an AfD. — Ksero 02:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initiating review for some users who have mentioned concerns about the article's deletion on its talk page. Their main points are:

• "As the log states, there were four to delete, four to keep";
• "Gary Hayes' Wikipedia page is relevant because he is running for an elected office in the government of Schoharie County in NY." Resurgent insurgent 02:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment I didn't feel like the people wanting to keep really addressed the arguments for deletion... namely not meeting WP:BIO. I recall looking at the sources provided before deletion, and they were all to the official campaign site or a results list. I saw nothing in the way of independent, non-trivial coverage required by WP:BIO. I'm always open to reconsidering if sources are found... with or without a DRV. Or perhaps the merge that was discussed, to a general article on the election. I guess I should have made that more clear, but I've been closing a lot of AFDs lately to help with the backlog. --W.marsh 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Consensus of the AfD was interpreted correctly, and nothing in the article except for the sheer fact of the election was cited to a reliable source. This was classic original research. Chick Bowen 03:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At least unsalt - looks like article was recreated only for temporary evaluative viewing purposes; not a reason to block legitimate recreation of a likely notable person for whom we haven't found good sources yet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, unsalted and history restored. Resurgent insurgent 06:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - The closer interpreted the debate correctly. The most recent info I could find on Gary Hayes was a listing in the October 28, 2000 obituary "HAYES, ELIZABETH 'BIRDIE'" in the Albany Times Union (search). Apparently, Elizabeth was Gary's mother. Despite his running for office he has not generated reliable source coverage, without which the article cannot meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. That was brought out in the discussion and was not reasonably challenged. The delete arguments were the stronger arguments and the rough consensus. Comment - not that this affects the deletion issue, but that article seemed attract BLP problems. -- Jreferee t/c 07:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Gary Hayes does have an impact on a statewide scale. If you want to see a lot of hits on Gary Hayes, look him up on YouTube. This article should be reinstated with several minor changes and corrections. Deletion of the article should have happened after a good discussion, like this, not all of a sudden like it was. Dr.orfannkyl 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There was already a "good discussion" about deletion. If the outcome goes against what you wanted, tough luck. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It was deleted after a six day Articles for Deletion discussion. That's one more day than is required by the guidelines. Corvus cornix 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion' result from afd is clear: unsourced blp about mayor from small town in NY is not an article that we need. Carlossuarez46 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The result of the AfD was pretty clear. The keep arguments were either assuming bad faith or a WP:ILIKEIT. In addition, I hate to make these declarations, but it seems like there are sockpuppets abounding in this one...this DRV is already getting all screwy and out of hand...and the Nazi argument has been made. Smashville 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse discussion was interpreted correctly. Keep arguments were, in general, not compelling, and consensus was clear. --Haemo 18:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Perhaps the closer should have specified his reasons, but the decision was absolutely correct. A local politician usually needs substantially more accomplishments and coverage to get into WP. No valid arguments for notability were presented. Mayor of a village pop. 1398, and lost the Republican primary for county clerk twice. Way below the bar. DGG (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Sgt. bender, JoeC2004 (with the exception of two edits to the Coin article), Dr.orfannkyl and Squeeblz are all SPAs. Squeeblz' comparison of this deletion to the Holocaust and Sgt. Bender's comparison to Nazi-ism have invoked Godwin's law to the ten-thousandth power. Close this deletion. Smashville 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop Attacking Other Users and Restore the Page It's unfortunate to see that users are arguing the membership of other users instead of arguing the facts. I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for months now, but I have only recently set up an account. The assumption that my only purpose in setting up an account to talk about Gary Hayes is not only wrong, its just stupid. Argue the facts, not the people. If you would check, I have edited other pages since I've aquired my account; furthermore, my account has only been in existence for a short time. I really haven't had time to edit or talk about other things in this short time, and my discussion of Gary Hayes is evident because I believe it to be a pertinent issue. I don't know about the other users supporting the Gary Hayes article, but I am not a SPA. Stop assuming things, please, and argue the facts. Dr.orfannkyl 19:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I'd appreciate it very much if you didn't delete my comments from the talk page. I am not arguing "your membership". I am stating the facts. The fact is that when you made this post, all but one of your posts has been related to the subject of the DRV is plain and simple. It is completely relevant to the discussion that the only people arguing to keep this page have made very few if any edits to any pages not related to this person. And I did check. The only other edit you made before I made that comment (or you made this post) was an edit to Jimmy Carter. All of your other edits prior to your edit here were related to the subject of the DRV. We're all supposed to assume good faith around here and there is nothing wrong with joining Wikipedia to help an article, but...it's a little odd when the only people arguing for the article only edit this article. Smashville 19:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did have another account for over a year (in fact I still have it, technically), but forgot the password and screwed up with the email. Except for that flaw, I have one active account and do still feel strongly about the Gary Hayes article. There is no need to get personal, so I will not. However, in defense of my National Socialist comment, the inability to comment freely is akin to Volkischer Beobachter. I understand that there are many articles deleted all of the time for good reason, but the way the discussion was carried out was irresponsible at least. (Check it if you're not sure.) Restore The article beat a discussion to delete, and I feel that that decision should stand.Sgt. bender 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it did not. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here. Smashville 20:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smashville why don't you actually look at the early history of the article instead of calling me a liar?Sgt. bender 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, just look at it instead of assuming. That's not very professional or administrator-like.Sgt. bender 20:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked. "The result is delete" and then it was brought to DRV. Where do you see that it survived AfD? Smashville 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the first two weeks of the article. It clearly is there.Sgt. bender 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did and I did again. This article never survived an AfD. Smashville 20:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not an admin. Smashville 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology Sorry, Smashville I just checked the log, and it doesn't hva emuch of the early record (like when I created the article. Sgt. bender 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the history is there...and I have a hard time believing this article had ever survived an AfD. I believe you are mistaken. Smashville 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at it. Way to accept an apology. And Hayes did a great job at that fritter, don't demean the man just because he's a Vietnam vet.Sgt. bender 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I demean someone for being or even mention someone being a Vietnam vet? Smashville 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article even mention that he's a Vietnam vet? Red herring, anybody? Corvus cornix 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important As can be seen by Rpnaico's contribution, there is more than enough additional sourcing to fix the article. This bolsters the sources already in the former article. I volunteer to shoulder the work if necessary. Sgt. bender 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who's Rpnaico? Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::Rpanico is the first contributor on the article discussion.Sgt. bender 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<--- Ah, User:Rpanico, whose User name is almost identical to the website which hosts Mr. Hayes's campaign information. Corvus cornix 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It did survive a deletion request, this is directly from the History log: 08:09, 8 September 2007 Glen (Talk | contribs) (1,603 bytes) (removing speedy delete tags - speedy is contested and subject is a allbeit minor political figure but therefore does at least show some notability - I suggest prod or afd from here)

It survived a speedy deletion nomination, that's not the same thing as a deletion discussion. Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these sources? The only ones I see are a party's website, an article written because he wants a Civil War memorial, an EPA filing, a website where he is the contact and a blog showing that he lost an election. Smashville 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a portion of the former deletion discussion, I think it significantly bolsters my case by two seasoned Wiki-veterans:Sgt. bender 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but we can all click the link and look at the AfD. Posting two comments from the AfD and making it look like the users signed them is not good practice. I have deleted them. You can link to them like this and this. Flatterworld's argument was a straightup WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Gloriamarie's argument completely ignores WP:BIO. Specifically, "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." Smashville 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated where the quotes were from and they are signed by the writers at the date that they were written. I think that is straightforward endorsements from two users who know a little more about Wikipedia.Sgt. bender 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were failed keep arguments from an AfD that both ignored Wikipedia policies. I still linked them for you. Smashville 20:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their statements were clearly applicable to this page and should be shown clearly.Sgt. bender 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, contact them about this instead of calling them incompetent behind their backs.Sgt. bender 20:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, this DRV is here for all to see. Secondly, I haven't called anyone incompetent. I stated that the arguments ignored WP policies. Don't post something as evidence to support your argument if you don't want someone to argue against it. Smashville 21:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also point out that Gloriamarie's argument was to keep pending the result of the election, as she seemed to be unaware that he had already lost the election? Smashville 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article clearly points out, (I wrote it myself)Hayes is still running in the general election as an independent despite losing the primary.Sgt. bender 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says nothing of the sort. It says he lost the primary by a large margin in September. The next paragraph says something about July. Smashville 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article, directly: Currently Hayes is running for the Schoharie County Clerk's position against incumbent Indica Jaycox. Hayes has the nod of the Schoharie County Conservative party and the New York State Constitution Party and is forcing a primary for the Republican nomination on September 18, 2007 [2].Sgt. bender 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is October 18. The election is apparently over? Therefore he is not currently running for anything. Corvus cornix 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is November 6, same as it was a month ago. Elections are usually held on the first Tuesday in November.Sgt. bender 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The election is indeed on November 6. JoeC2004 22:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he lost the primary. The article makes no mention of him running for anything else. Smashville 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion In my opinion the closing admin interpreted correctly both the consensus and the inherent flaws of the article. --Goochelaar 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Well...every long argument always seems to have the "main arguer" and in this one, it seems to be me...but I also need to add...sometimes there is something in article that just kinda says it all...the article contained this sentence..."Mr. Hayes volunteered at the recent North Blenheim church fritter supper on September 29,2007." Seriously? Smashville 21:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Here is the discussion from the Talk: Gary Hayes page. I think that it is more than relevant. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt. bender (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 October 2007

• Extreme endorse deletion. The hyperbole of the keep crowd is ridiculous. "terrorism"? "nazi"? "final solution"? Provide sources of his notability, as you have been repeatedly asked to do. You have not done so, there is nothing further to discuss, and the repeated attacks will, eventually, lead to all of you being blocked. Corvus cornix 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And may I suggest to Sgt. bender and friends a quick peek to Godwin's law? --Goochelaar 21:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could have written Godwin's law. What makes that noteworthy and not Gary Hayes?Sgt. bender 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't read the article because you completely missed the point. But to answer your question, it is sourced with multiple verifiable secondary sources and is extremely well-known. No one has been able to present any significant verifiable secondary sources on Gary Hayes. Smashville 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Foley Hayes may have been the inspiration for Matt Foley. Doesn't that make him noteworthy? If you don't believe me, look them both up on YouTube and compare them. Sgt. bender 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research is most definitely not a reason to overturn an AfD. Smashville 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Me Alone I never compared anyone to Nazis, I never deleted anyone's comments, and yet I'm being accused of such things. Stop lumping everyone together as people who support the article. And please stop attacking me. If you wish to particular address issues, address particular people. All I want is the article to be reinstated, and it's as if the admins are attacking everyone, and the lesser users are insulting the admins. Leave me out of this vitriol and discuss the issue with me, don't insult me. Dr.orfannkyl 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you. And you are correct. You did not delete my comment. It looks like it disappeared before your edit. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to overturn this AfD. He's the former mayor of a tiny town in New York whose most recent claim to notability is cooking corn fritters at a church. Smashville 21:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was attacked by Corvus cornix who lumped me in with every other anti-delete user when he said "the repeated attacks will, eventually, lead to all of you being blocked." "All of you being blocked." I never attacked anyone and the accusation of me doing so is unbelievably annoying. Dr.orfannkyl 21:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I attack anyone by name? I attacked those using the loaded language I quoted. If you didn't say any of those things, then there was no attack. Corvus cornix 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you attacked me specifically, I said you lumped me in with all the other people who support the article. You never said I, specifically, did the attacking, but you said that the pro-Gary Hayes article people, me included, are attacking people. Don't lump me in with others who are attacking people. That's all I want, please. Dr.orfannkyl 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importence Gary Hayes is important to over 30,000 people in the county, plus people in the nationwide Constitution Party and Ron Paul campaign. He also owns one of the last vintage Model As in the world. Not to mention ten years of elected service under three titles. This is more important than many authors, assemblypeople, and some professional sportspeople. Sgt. bender 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a car absolutely does not make him notable. Where are your sources that show that he's notable to these people? That's the entire point. Most authors and athletes have verifiable secondary sources and more importantly, meet Wikipedia guidelines, two points that you seem to be repeatedly missing. Smashville 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I owned Franz Ferdinand's deathcar, that would make me notable. He's far more notable than a pitcher who pitched in one game; and of course he's notable to over 30000 people, he's running to govern them. I think they careSgt. bender 22:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Owning a car does not make you notable. The existence of other articles is irrelevant per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And...per the article you wrote yourself...he already lost the primary by a wide margin. So he's not running for anything. Smashville 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, unfortunately, the only source I can use to even prove that is the article you wrote because no reliable secondary sources seem to exist on this guy. Smashville 23:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 4 in the article, at least 4 put up by Rpanico. If still interested, type in "Gary Hayes Schoharie County" into Google.Sgt. bender 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only potential secondary source period was a website that mentions his name and the number of votes as "NA". The other references were youtube, his own website (which states that he was running in the primary) and a mirror to the exact same website. Smashville 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am upset that you would think that my Wikipedia account is only to help this article. I want to help Wikipdia, especially with their sports coverage. JoeC2004 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the appeals from off-site for new users to come and discuss this - http://www.artistopia.com/gary-hayes/biography. Corvus cornix 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a transclusion, not an appeal on reflection. --Haemo 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously uncool, though. --Haemo 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...it's a mirror...I'm really concerned about sockpuppetry, though, but I don't really want to start another fire... Smashville 23:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, you're right. I didn't realize that since the formatting wasn't the same. My bad. Sorry. Corvus cornix 23:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repost My English might not be as good as should be, so I will write in Farsi what the person who write the article might say about its cencorship: man mored e tajavoz gharar gereftam. Cheddarbob2332 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that anytime someone doesn't want their article deleted, they claim "censorship" despite the fact that it's clearly not notable. Also note that this user joined WP less than an hour ago. Smashville 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Na namifaman... I have been subjuct to cencorship back in my home country of Iran before I got away. I know what cencorship is. Wikipedia is shekaste. Cheddarbob2332 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you said, but this is not censorship. Censorship would be deleting this article because we disagreed with his political views. This article is being deleted because - outside of 500 people in the middle of New York - no one has ever heard of this guy. Smashville 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you spoke, but you might be correct in your meaning of cencorship. man nemikham be shoma bi ehterami bekonam, vali tarjih midam daresh sherkat nakonam in Wikiipedia. Cheddarbob2332 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked. --Coredesat 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]