Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 10

List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closed as no consensus, but I do not believe that accurately reflects the debate; numerous editors want to have the list, but only one adequately sourced entry can be found (and someone just removed that one). Most of the removed entries were about sexual abuse, not sexual attraction. This was discussed in the debate, but not reflected by the closure; keep votes included the assertion that it is "not controversial" and "quite a common theme" based on the length of the list - but the list entries were all unsourced. I really don't see that we can support a list of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents - an extremely controversial label to attach to a song - without credible independent secondary sources to support the idea that this is a theme which attaches to more than a handful of songs, and without equally credible independent sources for every inclusion. In this case only one entry survived the sourcing process, and even that has been removed as disputed. In the end, though, the major problem here is that the songs listed - and the sole supporting external link, http://s-fe.com/Singing_the_song_of_child_sexual_assault - are about sexual assault, not "sexual attraction". There is indeed some evidence that there are songs about sexual assault, but that is not what this list documents and there is little overlap between the two. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure I'd suggest that Guy's argument, shared by many of those supporting deletion, depends on a stricter construction of WP:V than that for which a consensus of the community exists and on an overstatement of our deletion policies (most relevantly, if a reasonable article might exist at a given title or about a given topic, a deficient existing article at that title or about that topic should not be deleted unless it is entirely useless as a framework for a broader, more proper article or is wholly unencyclopedic; here, an article with a reasonable lead, noting that various songs have been written about sexual attraction to children and adolescents and that there exists—as it seems there does—some treatment of the issue, both generally and with respect to specific songs, would, even with a list of just one song, suffice, at least temporarily) but we really need not reach the underlying merits; it is clear that the discussion did not bear out a consensus for deletion, and because there exist no fundamentally unaddressed "delete" !votes and because the "keep" !votes did purport to consider policies, guidelines, and practices and were not facially contrary to established practices, a "no consensus" closure was entirely appropriate. Joe 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not as such, no. The list contained mainly unsourced entries, but one or two were sourced form (copyvios of) the lyrics; in these cases the interpretation of the lyrics which led to inclusion was, IMO, questionable at best - inclusion of the word "jailbait", for example, does not mean the song is "portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents". Hence the need for reliable independent sources in each case. In many cases, though, a google for song title + sexual came up with only one hit: our list. There is no evidence that a reasonable article could exist at this title, since a list implies a meaningful number of songs and I am not aware of any significant number of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents (as opposed to featuring sexual abuse, which is rather more common). The lead asserts that a number of songs have been written, but no evidence is presented to support that assertion. You are right that there must needs at root be an encyclopaedic subject being, more or less, songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. I see nothing to support such an encyclopaedic subject. I'm also concerned that this was part of a grouped close, but there is good evidence that there are books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents, Lolita being the most notorious, but that evidence does not exist with respect to songs; the subject is probably too complex to be readily amenable to such brevity. Right now we have an empty list. With some work we might get that to only nearly empty. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse Frankly, it seems rather wasteful of everyone's time and energy to appeal a non-consensus close. If one thinks it should rather have been deleted, one need only wait a month or two and renominate. DGG (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Joe. The debatability of the requirement of citations for the lyrics of common-knowledge songs and the questionable removal of the existing material and citations by the nominator aside, those in favor of deletion did a poor job of refuting the arguments of their inclusionist counterparts; for example, Guy said there was consensus on censoring pedastry-related material on Wikipedia, but when pressed, was unable to provide anything substantive; all he could provide was an AfD regarding a POV fork of a pedastry-related page that was deleted as a POV fork. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close I see no compelling policy reason to reconsider this at this time. I do however, strongly disagree with the notion that we as a community would directly censor material related to any topic, even one as distasteful as paedophilia. I don't think however that Guy was advocated such censorship although I can see why someone might think so. The issue here is sourcin. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Nominator just seems to be restating the case which he made during the AFD and which failed to convince. No process-based reason to review is advanced. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, actually, it was a group close but this list is different from the other two in the group. It is also currently unpopulated due to sourcing issues. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Spellcast hit the nail on the head. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Spellcast? Hobit (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a user that posted on the AFD and wanted the page deleted. In case you are interested this is what the user wrote

• Fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DIRECTORY #5, and largely amounts to original research. The cited ref (which uses copyvio YouTube videos and lyrics) is of course not a reliable source because it's just a wiki. --76.69.166.27 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The object here is to decide whether policy wasn't followed in examining consensus, not to recapitulate the AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; if all it takes to get an article deleted is to delete the content, we can delete any article! If you can honestly claim that Gary Puckett's Young Girl isn't about sexual attraction to underage women, despite the link to the singer saying so, I don't know what to say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by closing admin. I wrote a rather long closing statement so I have not much to add. I presume all noticed that I considered three similar AfD, started on the same day, and that the closing statement is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents. Contrary to user JzG's (Guy) statement here I did considered the whole discussion, reflected on it, and tried to express that in my closing statement when stating that keeps looked weaker. Yet many deletes are not that strong either: being unsourced is not a reason to delete the article, is a reason to delete it's unsourced content. Actually very few delete opinions were about the articles' subject but about editing issues. All in all I think it is a quite clear case of 'no consensus'. - Nabla (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye (Mariah Carey song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Although I understand that the page was created by the sock-puppet of a banned user, and that the single was unconfirmed at that time, it has since been confirmed as Carey's new single by her record company, her official website, and various third parties (including VH1. It is also being given a digital release on April 14 2008. As it is now confirmed, there should be no reason for protecting the page, nor should it be speedied repeatedly as it has been today. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this page once. This was solely because it was recreated by a sockpuppet of a blocked vandal. I would not at all oppose undeleting it or allowing its recreation, now that it can be sourced appropriately. There's possibly still some WP:CRYSTAL issues, but I just want to point out the reason I deleted it. I am not the most recent admin to delete this page, nor was I the first to delete it however. --Yamla (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why it's not linking properly here, but the article was first deleted (by me as closer) after an AFD debate located here. It has since been recreated a couple of times, and deleted per speedy G4. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't linking because of different capitalisation of "song", I fixed the above link. - Nabla (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: G4 states that the page must have been substantially similar without addressing the AfD concerns. The main concern was the wholeWP:CRYSTAL aspect; on the AfD, I even voted delete for that reason. However, it's now been confirmed by various sources, and it was noted as such on the page. It's currently playing on radio, and the digital release is next Monday. As such, I feel that G4 wouldn't apply, because the concerns were addressed. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Per WP:MUSIC the individual song must appear on charts, have a music video, or otherwise have notable coverage. The protection came as a result of a user circumventing our policies by using a sockpuppet, indicating no respect for community consensus, and a likelihood to repeat this action. Notability was the driving force behind the deletion, and vandalism/sockpuppetry was behind the protection, both valid and reasonable applications of policy in my opinion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But were the speedy deletes valid if the article was not substantially similar? Hobit (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what's going on with this one. First, I deleted it after a nearly unanimous AfD. Nearly all the AfD participants said "recreate when sourced" It's sourced. I endorse undeletion. It looks in the logs like someone undeleted it days ago (an admin that hasn't participated in this DRV) Is this DRV closed then? What's going on? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The phenomenon of silent protagonists is a notable feature of many computer games, particularly role playing games. A recently successful AfD against it claimed that it was Wikipedia editors who think games have silent protagonists - not exactly true; here are some articles from the gaming press that cover the phenomenon of silent protagonists: [1] /kill-the-silent-protagonist-325121.php [2]. There is no reason to delete a non-BLP article simply because it currently doesn't have enough reliable sources, only that it could never have them. 80.41.241.166 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as closer - the consensus was quite clear. If you've got some good sources now, not dependent on OR, create a new article and let it stand on its own. This one was closed properly. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as per closer. BTW, the AfD link up top is for the first discussion, which was closed as "keep". The second discussion, which resulted in "Delete" is here. Horologium (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close but allow recreation per new sourcing and Orangemike's comment. It may be helpful to userfy the old version, have that improved and then have a DRV to approve that. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• allow re-creation there are additional sources. DGG (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but permit recreation consistent with JoshuaZ's suggestion. Joe 07:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, I realize this is the third time this has popped up here in about 24 hours. Mind you, the first one was a post to the wrong forum and the second was before the article was speedy deleted. I've spent some time thinking about it...and while I believe FCYTravis didn't handle this the best way, I believe he was right. At the very least, I think this needs to be relisted at AfD by a non-sock user. We did have a clear consensus to delete, but I think our opinions were swayed by the sockpuppets and SPAs. The NASIOC people did provide sources from a Subaru-owned magazine, which were determined to be primary sources. However, as NASIOC is an organization of Subaru Owners and not actually affiliated, I believe this could actually be a secondary source. As I mentioned in the ANI thread, I find it hard to believe that no secondary sources exist for the world's largest Subaru organization, I just don't think we know where to look. And I believe the sockpuppetry that brought on the forum shopping made these editors defensive to the point that instead of providing useful information, they believed we were just throwing bluelinks at them to spite them. Even the closer stated that he was leaning towards closing this as a trainwreck. Smashville^BONK! 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should consider only the relevant facts. Who started it is not relevant. What makes or breaks it is sources. The best sources people could find were brought up during the AFD. They were analyzed, and they turned out to be not good. I see no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources of the type that is needed to write an encyclopedia article. Sure, the AFD was messy, but when you clear away the muck, useful facts still remain. We can evaluate this on those facts. So, in my view, the closer did it exactly right. Endorse deletion. Friday (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion While a Yahoo search turns up 468,000 sources, there isn't a reliable source among them. There needs to be more than just the NASIOC site for there to be an encyclopedia article in this. Blueboy96 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) (closing admin)[reply]
• Restore Two offline references to NASIOC include mentions in Subiesport[3] (June 2005) and an article in Maxim about Trunk Monkey. Additionally, NASIOC is a sponsor of The Subaru Chalange [4]. Its difficult to find other mainstream media regarding NASIOC due to how the members are usually operating under their regional chapters. However, the same can be said for the numerous other auto clubs already listed on Wikipedia. Additionally, I don't beleive the negative comments on the club's forum regarding wikipedia should have any bearing on the article deletion as User:Keeper76 is suggesting[5]. In fact, I believe several of the !votes came because certain editors were offended by comments in the offsite forum. Beethoven05 (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The big question that is going to be asked, since there is not an online copy of the article...is the Subiesport article actually about NASIOC? --Smashville^BONK! 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the article was written about NASIOC, and myself as the owner and a Subaru enthusuiast. We are in the process of contacting the magazine staff to get a copy or some sort of electronic copy. I believe they have them available in PDF, but I'm not positive they will allow public distribution of the article. I'm going to try to negotiate what I can with them to get some rights to post the articles themselves. In addition I have also asked for their cooperation in getting other notable cites from their magazine. Since NASIOC is a fairly large hub of the Subaru community, there have been numerous articles about events and other happenings that directly involve NASIOC. --NickNASIOC (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • comment Given the obvious conflict of interest, Subiesport can't be considered a reliable source about the notability of anything Subaru-related! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment So a published article about NASIOC in an independent internationally distributed magazine, that can be picked up at any Barnes & Noble, is not notable for NASIOC because it's about Subarus? Just to play Devil's advocate here for a moment: If I were creating a wiki article about some new field of physics research and one of my sources on this new field was in a widely distributed educational journal about physics, would that as well not be considered notable? Does that logic really only not make sense in my head? I'm really trying to understand the rules to help guide the NASIOC article in the right direction. But It feels as though we are right back where we started on the AfD. We find what we're told in one breath what would be notable, only to find it, and have someone else tell us it's not notable. I guess I'm not sure why the articles about NASIOC have to be in sources that typically have no business caring about a site on the internet. Does this mean that all wikis require press in newpapers or magazines (ones without direct relevance to the topic of course). I'm sorry if I'm coming across as frustrated, but we are trying our best to do all that has been asked of us, but again it seems that the rules keep changing just enough every time we get close to notability to keep NASIOC out. --NickNASIOC (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike, just a question, but what would the "obvious" conflict of interest in the source be? As they've pointed out, it's an article about their organization in a reliable independent secondary source? Obviously they have a conflict of interest in writing it, but we can always edit it to maintain neutrality... --Smashville^BONK! 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A perfectly reasonable question. My reasoning is that as a Subaru-fan publication, Subiesport has a vested interest in making Subaru fanclubs seem notable, both to excite people about Subarus and to get more subscriptions from members of the fanclubs they portray. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without getting in to the main argument about the notability of NASIOC, it should be pointed out that Subiesport did the report on NASIOC, not any of the legion of other Subaru enthusiast groups out there. If the article is about NASIOC, and is not written by someone affiliated with NASIOC, it qualifies as a sufficiently independent source for the purposes of establishing notability. Additional sources would be required to establish notability and verifiability, as per the relevant policies. Needless to say, NASIOC is a specialized group, some of which qualify as notable outside their field of interest and some of which do not. Horologium (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I vehemently disagree that "fan"-created publications are not reliable sources. Does that mean that we can't use the Sierra Club magazine or the National Audubon Society magazine as sources in articles about environmental issues? Would it be prohibited to use National Geographic as a source in an article about geography (they're all geography fans! conflict of interest!)? Where does it end? Can we not use a conservative publication as a source in articles about conservatives, because there might be a "fan bias?" Silly, to say the least. FCYTravis (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Other automobile associations exist on Wikipedia, cite no sources, yet continue to exist without being called into question. If this article is deleted, by reason of equality, all other automobile associations without sources cited must also be speedy deleted. Manarius 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Friday (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friday, I disagree. Let us use a similar argument as given in the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS article. Perhaps, we should allow for a ring of "car ownership club" pages on Wikipedia. Manarius 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - unsourced, evidently non-notable. Maniarius, if there are other such articles, you can prod or AfD them; indeed, I would encourage you to do so. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CANVASS meets WP:V and WP:N. The latter, quite properly, won the day. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, which by the way, has absolutely nothing to do with their blog, as Beethoven implies (but thanks for that). Any article, without reliable independent sources or proof of notability, should be deleted. This includes NASIOC. It may, or may not, include other car enthusiast clubs. I could care less about car enthusiast clubs. If you show me a dozen car enthusiast clubs' articles that are as unsourced and unnotable as NASIOC was, I'll nominate them for deletion myself. That said, I didn't delete the article, and the assumption you are making Beethoven, that I advocated deletion because of a petty blogpost is, well egregious. I'm better than that. I even told the meatpuppets that I would be their advocate for inclusion if they could show any reliable, independent, third party sources that verify their worthiness of an article beyond spamming for their organization. I really strongly resent being singled out in your DRV nom, Beethoven, and I hope you'll retract your comment. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unclear how the article by Suburu isn't independent of the group. It seems to be a perfectly fine 3rd party reliable source. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist Well let me ask this, if the forum thread was of no bearing, why was it important to link it in the AFD. if it wasnt to persuade others, it surely would have that effect. remarks made about you or anyone else away from the AFD should never have been used in the AFD as the AFD is not based on remarks made elsewhere. It would be in the best interest to allow Nasioc to continue to provide information to notablilty. In order to increase the Wikipedia community and to show fairness maybe some assistance and time to meet specific request and not those of a sock. Obviously the person who initiated the AFD had an agenda beyond the benefits of wikipedia. if the admins were insulted, well so where the NASIOC members who not wiki experts. Keeper, I am sorry but you opened yourself to question of bias when you posted the site. --Rcrookes (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist The whole conversation got derailed, on purpose IMO, by socks. Those who are experts aren't experienced wiki-folk and they didn't know what to do to establish notability in the face of truly obnoxious socks. I think this is notable, but agree it is debatable and should be relisted so an actual set of facts can be determined than then a consensus (hopefully) settled on. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh dear.. if the AFD was "tainted" and thus unusable, due to outside involvement, what of this deletion review? I see a couple different accounts who've done almost no editing here, other than on this single issue. Friday (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Found one...the majority of this article is about the NASIOC reaction to the 2008 WRX: [6]. Edmunds is most definitely a reliable source. Not the total primary focus (although the reaction of the members is)...but definitely not trivial. --Smashville^BONK! 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do sources like this help support notability? If so, there are many more like this out there. Edmunds article regarding NASIOC scoop on '09 Forester[7]; PR on MotorTrend covering a NASIOC sponsored event [8]; Slashdot article covering The Star Wars Car [9]. I don't want to clutter up this discussion, but there are more similar to this if it is helpful. Beethoven05 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with those is that the first one is a blog...because blogs are generally not factchecked, they aren't considered reliable sources (although they can be used in some instances, but more as a reference than as evidence to notability); the second one has a similar issue...press releases aren't allowed (believe me, I found a ton) because they are more or less well written advertising; slashdot has the blog issue, too...you're on the right track, though...can you guys find any local news accounts of the events the chapters put on? --Smashville^BONK! 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't searched for Chapter coverage yet, but there are several cases were quotes from NASIOC are used in newspaper articles including the Chicago Tribune (Chicago, IL), The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) and The Ottowa Citizen (Ottowa, Ont.). Beethoven05 (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • clarification - It's long-established that being quoted in a newspaper story not about the subject, does not make the subject notable. Unless the newspaper articles are about NASIOC, they are irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • clarification The articles we are referring to would not be glancing quotes from NASIOC, but would be specifically about events held by the local chapters of NASIOC in their regions. --NickNASIOC (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment I'd say those would be most helpful, but heck, I already think this group is notable. And I don't own a Subaru. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore due to too much sockpuppetry in the previous discussion and even when their edits are removed, there was really no consensus, i.e. strong disagreement existed even among established admins and regular good faith editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I think it needs to be noted that while NASIOC itself has not necessarily been covered in print very often, there have been quite a few articles that have cited NASIOC as a place for tech info within other articles. On another note, I see a lot of calls for verification of notability, so it seems to me that this is a pretty large gray area within Wikipedia. NASIOC may not be horribly relevant to the layperson, but as online based automotive clubs go it's fairly large and well known. I would daresay that there is not a trivial number of people involved in any given automotive message board that has heard of NASIOC in some way. It's nearly impossible to prove, beyond knowing that there have been threads in the past which have had members from a myriad of automotive boards checking in. At any rate, to me Wikipedia is supposed to be a vast repository of information that you definitely won't find explicitly in a ink and paper encyclopedia. To that end, it doesn't hurt to have articles which may pertain to things that you won't necessarily find in ink and paper sources. Upnygimp (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion per Guy above. Eusebeus (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Guy says it all. The reappearance of the SPAs from the non-notable forum again attracts my attention; the original delete was correct; that article should be kept deleted per WP:N. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The appearance of SPAs in the DRV is not a reason to endorse deletion/protection if there are reliable secondary sources. It appears that they were the primary focus of an independent magazine article... --Smashville^BONK! 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And perhaps you would like to re-read what I said? "The reappearance of the SPAs from the non-notable forum again attracts my attention". At no point did that feature in my reasoning and my opinion is not changed by your misrepresentation. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But that interpretation is clearly contradicted by the fact the author of the original writing used a semicolon after that phrase, which means that it is more tightly connected to the phrase that follows it than if a period was used. If you re-read the text, it's clear that the reference to SPAs must logically lead into "the original delete was correct" as that phrase leads into "the article should be kept deleted...". As per the Death of the Author and your use of the intentional fallacy, I must conclude that Smashville's interpretation is much more accurate than yours, --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist, semi-protected if need be From what I saw of the AfD, there were more dregs than tea. 7<=>6 (the number of keep/delete args after all the SPAs and sockpuppets are discounted) isn't exactly a consensus; I've seen noms close as "no consensus" with larger margins than this. If there is so much as a shadow of a chance that disruption might continue with a new AfD, semi-protect and monitor the page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v X of Swords)} 18:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, unless someone can actually show reliable sourcing that isn't just a trivial mention in passing. For those on "margins", say it with me, AfD is not a vote. If those advocating to keep do not actually show sourcing that justifies keeping the article, their arguments are irrelevant, if those sources can be shown, arguments to delete are irrelevant. Here, little to no sourcing has been brought up, aside from some unreliable and trivial mentions, so the number of "keep because I like it" is not relevant. Sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is also irrelevant, there just aren't the sources here to justify an article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A whole article on the topic isn't trivial.. And the Subiesport article appears to be both reliable and non-trivial. And while some of the other articles look a bit on the weak side, there are clearly multiple reliable sources where the group is at least a topic of the article. Hobit (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - The AfD was created by a sockpuppet troll with the intent to disrupt the encyclopedia, and the discussion was clearly impacted by the fact that a number of the troll's other sockpuppets showed to up to !vote delete along the way. Further complicating the matter were SPAs coming in from the forum to defend the article. The result is an unmitigated mess and I don't believe that we serve ourselves best by leaving an appearance of impropriety that results from a patently disruptive/trolling AfD attempt. If the article truly needs to be deleted, then surely another AfD can be made by a legitimate user and the discussion can proceed without the taint of sockpuppetry and trolling. FCYTravis (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please, think of the articles. The last thing we should do is relist. Nobody's presented a credible plan for making a new AFD run better than the old one. But, more and more sources are being dug up all the time. I think all we have to do here is remember that if someone writes a properly sourced article on this topic that is substantially different from the old one, we don't have to be bound by the old AFD on the old crappy version. So I guess all I'm saying is, don't immediately delete a fresh stab at a new article on this topic, if someone tries to make it. Friday (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course there's a plan for making a new AFD run better than the old one. The sockpuppet trolls involved have all been blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that solves the problem for the 10 seconds it takes to make a new account. Anyone got a better idea? Friday (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. I've been following this discussion off and on for awhile now (I'm not affiliated with NASIOC) but I came across an article this evening that was also nominated AFD, it did turn out to be 'no consensus, default to keep' citing that 'Lack of sources doesn't always mean delete - it's an invitation to clean up, and I truly hope that the editors of this article will do that.'. That AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online (2nd nomination). My question is.. in the spirit of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules why can we not look at this article in that same light? It seem as though some editors or whatever you want to call them are all offended and extending their long arm of the law to squash this content out of spite; which is doing nothing towards improving wikipedia. As someone who's been here for a long time in the sense of an anonymous IP address it really does make this group look rather uh.. unprofessional. I suggest that since there seems to be strong desire for many people to have, keep and improve the article, this gets restored so that it can actually see the light of day and be improved. I'm sure that's not what some of you want, and you'll continue waving your "no sources" flag till the cows come home, but I thought I'd comment anyway. Mobilepolice (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also want to make one other note just as a preemptive strike. I know I'm going to get the oft-repeated argument about the article that it is Advertising and/or spam in some nature. To reply to that (before it's repeated to me in a rebuttal sense): Anything on here is Advertising, for that fact we shouldn't have a movie list like Awake (film), one for which I recently restructured the plot, because these advertise the film themselves. That's my personal opinion, the difference between a film listing and an article on an enthusiast club is that the film listing may generate revenue from the particular person who saw the listing, read the plot, and decided to see the movie. To this extent, demanding independent sources does not change weather or not an article is outright advertisement. NASIOC has nothing, in my opinion, to gain in a monetary sense by the article on wikipedia. They sell nothing, the advertising on their website from the looks of it goes to support and pay the bills of the popular site. Since I feel they are not a retailer of any good or service with the intention of making a profit (I do not believe the website is a registered business either), I do not feel WP:SPAM is a valid argument. Furthermore if there is any disagreement on that front a demand of independent sources per WP:NOTABILITY then I must stress that the inclusion of independent sources do not invalidate the WP:SPAM argument. I don't care to do the digging right now but I believe I have come across some small articles in the past written about startup companies or new technology patented by said company, reviewed on major news networks (like CNN etc), and remain on wikipedia; these are nothing more than advertisements with sources, where do you draw the line? Just curious. Mobilepolice (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Mobilepolice's first and second edits here were to this discussion. Blueboy96 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For my previous edits please see Special:Contributions/68.52.101.103, I only created an account recently after my changes to Awake (film) and decided if I was going to be making big edits like that I'd like to get credited with them. Mobilepolice (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist consensus was extremely difficult to determine in that one. Semi-prot the afd from the getgo. Viridae^Talk 08:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User Follyglot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCfD)

I changed my mind.

Archived discussion where category was deleted (disposition: speedy delete, creator request) here.

I have been persuaded that the tips on the former category's talk page (now relocated here) are not as visible when relegated to user space, and that they are of general enough interest to warrant more exposure.

So, I've reconsidered and would like to discuss that. Would it be a good idea to recreate the category somewhere, albeit with a more useful and conventional/proper name than the original?

Thanks. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Associated userbox here. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - While I understand a want to have the information easily accessible, I don't think a category is the way to go for this. I suppose you could consider moving this to Wikipedia: space as , at least, an essay. But be aware that there will be those who will suggest moving it back to your userspace. As for that concern, there are a lot of subpages in userspace that are found just fine. Perhaps there may be some other Wikipedia-space pages which you could place this page as a "see also" link? - jc37 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (Endorse) I second Jc37's suggestion; your tips can be helpful, but I don't see the utility of a user category. A userpage (with see also links in appropriate locations) could eventually evolve into something useful enough to merit a page in Wikipedia-space as a full-blown essay, which I would support. I don't think it's there yet, but given time and other sets of eyes, it might. Horologium (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per comments above. This category is not useful for Wikipedia, and even if brought back (under any name) it would get re-nominated and would almost certainly be deleted, as consensus was heading in the last nomination before you requested deletion, prompting a speedy. VegaDark (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Jc37 and Horologium, I think searching for users with this particular skill/interest is useful. You disagree?

Suppose some member gets roped into porting a complicated template to multiple shaky-language projects. There might be another member sporting both the follyglot badge and an "I understand parser functions" badge. There would be no convenient way to find that person/resource without the userbox/category pair. Right?

Suppose somebody just has a random question. They could put it on the essay discussion page. When I've done that, unless the author monitors, I've never gotten an answer. They could put it on my user page, too. But I don't log in here every week. Sure, somebody else might modify the essay, or contribute significantly to the discussion page. That person might monitor, or they could put a discussion page note there, too. But I imagine there are more people whose knowledge is on par with mine (who might share my interest and join a userbox category) than whose knowledge significantly surpasses mine (who would feel the need to add to what I wrote).

But I've seen the userbox+category model work in similar situations. So if somebody's frustrated with a simple question still unanswered after 10 days when I haven't logged in, they have the option of checking out the profiles of other people on the list. Winter (User:Snakesteuben) (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closer of the previous discussion - I do not oppose a relisting for discussion at WP:UCFD, if that is what is being requested here. - jc37 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't have a problem with the concept here, but I disagree that a category is the way to go. If someone is frustrated that you haven't answered their question after 10 days, sure, they can ask every other person in the category, but what happens if they're unavailable as well, or doesn't have the answer needed, or has no interest in helping anyone out, they just want that userbox for their userpage and the category came with it? Said person with the question will have wasted a lot of time spamming everyone in the category and will still be no closer to getting it answered. And that's if the person with the question even has heard of the userbox/category. --Kbdank71 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is in regards to an article on the National High School Center. The National High School Center is a non-profit organization set-up by the Department of Ed. and I posted an article on the Center last December. In February, the article was deleted for copyright reasons and I was encouraged to re-write the article using original content. I have re-written the article and would like to re-post. Is there any way to get it reviewed here before posting it again? Highschoolimprovement (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Put it in your user space, and post a link to it here would be my suggestion. This seems common for deleted articles. Be sure you have solid sourcing first...Hobit (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Great suggestion. The article is now up on my user space. Any way someone can review it and give me suggestions? --Highschoolimprovement (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article draft is now at User:Highschoolimprovement/National High School Center, but so far it lacks any third party references other than by the organization itself. It also resembles still an organization describing their mission and offerings. Before moving it to the article space you should add some sources and do a major rewrite.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a perfectly reasonable, long standing article that is unbiased and factual with good external links to good sources (BBC) - this was no reason for it to have been deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BRChamber (talk • contribs)

International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

with no good reason

• This article could have been STUB instead of DELETE.
• Nine direct/indirect references were provided to mention the notability of the article
• The deletion of this article is unfair
• Should be restore

Iamsaa (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion DRV is not a rehash of AfD, and this does not address or shed any new light on the AfD. As to the references, they were brought up at the AfD, and (correctly) dismissed as trivial name-drop mentions of the subject, unreliable, or both. If the nominator would like to see this article restored, I would encourage that they actually provide substantial sourcing, or that will not happen. Conflict of interest also appears to be at issue here, and while that is not in itself a reason to delete anything, it certainly should make us cautious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own deletion - I found Scientizzle's arguments persuasive. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist It shouldn’t be deleted, because it was an appropriate article in all the way, with number of sources provided. If you want I can highlight even hundreds of article poor than that article, which are not just exist but thriving day by day. It should have been stub. I want this to be restored.--Falconkhe (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Hut 8.5 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion these arguments were brought up in the AfD and rejected. Deletion review is not a second run through of AfD, as Seraphimblade points out - it is simply a way of reviewing the closure of deletion discussions, and here Moreschi closed the debate in line with consensus. Hut 8.5 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion I have studied deeply, this article was improving time by time and its progression was continue, it shouldn’t be deleted. Nine references were provided to support this article. Deletion is like an unjust. I strongly recommend to restore this article.--Asikhi (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was deleted through a pretty clear consensus after a 7 day discussion after group forum shopped the debate and was still never able to provide one single reliable secondary source. An admin who participated in the AfD (and voted keep) superceded the initial deletion discussion, restored the deleted article...my G4 speedy was declined. Ignore the below discussion on the same article. This restoration was highly, highly, highly out of process. Smashville^BONK! 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strike that...OrangeMike redeleted as G4 while I was writing this. --Smashville^BONK! 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I realise that he's dead, but WP:ONEEVENT now re-directs to WP:BLP1E. There is absolutely no evidence this person was notable other than for murdering and being executed, something that none of the "KEEP"s addressed. Nor were they policy based. This was apparently a non-admin close (his page makes no reference to being one) and I spoke with the closer and I don't agree with the reason for his close especially the assertion that this is a notable event --it's a death row inmate who was executed, unfortunately the US has a lot of those, so we're here. Thoughts? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my closure, which is justified on the following grounds:

(1) As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalton Prejean had a unanimous consensus favoring retention of the article, and did not raise issues of severe policy violations (such as copyright violations or unreferenced controversial information concerning a living person) it is highly improbable that an administrator would have deleted the article on the basis of this AFD discussion. Respect for consensus on Wikipedia is usually sufficient to preclude the deletion of an article against the wishes of every participant in an AFD discussion except the nominator, absent an extraordinarily compelling justification.

(2) WP:BLP1E is a subsection of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and is to be construed accordingly. Therefore, it is inapplicable to deceased subjects. Dalton Prejean, being dead for the last 18 years, is no longer within the remit of the biographies of living persons policy.

(3) Even if

(a) Dalton Prejean were a living person and

(b) it were established that he was only notable for a single event

WP:BLP1E would still not constitute a compelling reason for deletion, as WP:BLP1E advises editors to cover notable events as such, rather than in the context of biographies of otherwise non-notable participants: "Cover the event, not the person." The article could easily be reworked into coverage of Dalton Prejean's execution, and the events preceding it, subject matter which apparently does not receive detailed treatment in other articles. Renaming the article to Execution of Dalton Prejean and revising the text accordingly would be far more efficient than deleting the article and attempting to write a new article concerning the event. John254 01:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse close/ welcome to relist BLP1E/ONEVENT are essentially stylystic and editorial concerns. In general, it is often more useful to focus on events than the individuals. When they are living people there may be additional reasons to do so. Those concerns don't apply since the individual is dead. Consensus was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. I have yet to see any evidence that the event is notable, which, living or not, is why I still see it failing the policy of WP:ONEVENT. Is being a murderer notable? I don't think we've established this which is the crux of the issues. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, BLP concerns do not apply, since "BLP" stands for "biographies of living persons." Figuring out why that does not apply here is left to the reader. Other than that, clear consensus to keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep. Case reached the supreme court, attracted attention from the European Parliament, and is one of the fairly rare examples of the US executing someone for crimes committed as a juvenile. Article was also well-referenced. Add all that to a unanimous consensus to keep, all of them making reasonable arguments, and I see no way this AFD could be closed as a "delete". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous keep decision. DRV is a venue for explaining how the deletion process wasn't followed, not a second round of AFD to try and get your preferred result. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which is exactly what I was explaining, a non-admin close that I didn't feel followed generally accepted guidelines and policies, I realise BLP1E doesn't apply to someone dead, really wish ONEEVENT wasn't a redirect there now as NOTNEWS is NOTNEWS dead or alive. Clearly others disagree, that doesn't mean I was trying to get my 'preferred result.' Clearly there is a consensus that NOTNEWS/ONE:EVENT doesn't apply, fine. It didn't hurt to ask since I thought that was the point of DRV. Someone can feel free to close this TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]