Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Shortcuts: WP:DRV WP:DELREV

Deletion discussions

Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process – log – tools Guide – Admin guide

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

[edit] What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

[edit] Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Shortcut: WP:DRV

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

[edit] Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

[edit] History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

[edit] How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

[edit] Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.


1.	Copy the following line (which is also listed for you in the date page below): `{{subst:Newdelrev\|pg=PAGENAME\|ns=NAMESPACE of page\|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~` For images, use the following instead: `{{subst:NewdelrevImg\|pg=IMAGE_NAME\|ifddate=DATE\|article=ARTICLE_NAME\|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~` (where IMAGE NAME is the name of the image without the "Image:" prefix, DATE is the date of the IfD page, ARTICLE_NAME is the name of the article in which the image was used.)
2.	Follow this link to today's log, paste the line at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page), below the date header box. (This box looks like a few lines of hash in the edit page the link takes you to, but look for the "BELOW THIS LINE" tag after the first paragraph, and paste in your request just below that). Then replace `PAGE_NAME` and `UNDELETE_REASON` in your addition with appropriate content. Your whole contribution is this single bracketted tag. The tag will create the proper section for you when you save the page, so you don't need to create a new header or do anything else.
3.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a `{{subst:Delrev}}` tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (22 August 2008)

[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 21 August 2008

[edit] 20 August 2008

[edit] Silkroad Online

Requesting unsalting only. Article was deleted over a content dispute (mainly gamecruft perceived as POV), then salted due to being "large." If undeletion would be preferred, that's fine, otherwise I have a ~~new cruft free stub~~ ready to make a fresh start. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the new article longhand from the User subpage into Article space. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done I've unprotected, just a note to any passing admins, DO NOT restore the prior revisions as they are very difficult to delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge instinct (closed)

[edit] The Jewish Internet Defense Force

I'm requesting that this keep (and subsequent speedy keep) be reviewed. The initial AFD was a mess of sockpuppetry accusations, disruptive comments, etc. I started a new AFD just yesterday because I believed I hada better rationale for deletion than the original nom. However, this morning my AFD was closed as "speedy keep" and I was told to bring it here. This is an article about an "unofficial" collection of people that hijacked an antisemetic Facebook group and started deleting its members. As far as I can tell, all of the provided third-party references that can be considered reliable don't actually talk about this group beyond that single event. The CBS news one is about the Canadian military telling it's soldiers to not post their photos on Facebook. The Computerworld article is about the Simon Weisenthal Center. MOST of the provided references in the article are from the group itself. A Facebook vandalism group doesn't seem particularly notable, and WP:ONEEVENT seems to apply here as the overall breadth of coverage is pretty scant. Two articles about hijacking a Facebook group and an opinion piece that was written by one of the people who has edited the Wikipedia article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. No one else felt it needed to be deleted. It's merely a convenience that all of the links all go back to the same group which publicizes what it does. If anything as time goes on this group gains more attention. So pushing for deletion seems absurd as this page is becoming more important. - Saxophonemn (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

— Saxophonemn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think it's a shame as this is the first time I was ever inspired to contribute to Wikipedia and I was trying to help make this article more neutral in the first place, and as soon as everything dies down and we all start getting along and the article is making progress, it seems it continues to get vandalized w/ all of these deletion tags (despite the fact that most people seem to think it is notable enough and with enough reliable sources to keep it.) is this how it goes for all new articles? If so, it might be too frustrating to continue to try to help edit...--Einsteindonut (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

— Einsteindonut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~:*Comment:The two votes above should be ignored. Rob^{Not an admin} 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)~~Closing editor/admin's discretion. Rob^{Not an admin} 22:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Seems to meet the notability criteria. The AFD was a mess, but pretty much a keep. I don't see any issues. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Saxophonemn. Further, I explained on the deletion request that most of the links Nobody of Consequence has listed here refer to the back ground section. Naturally this sets the context and does not refer to JIDF itself. There are references in the Jerusalem Post, Artuz 7, and the UK's Telegraph -- all specifically about JIDF. As discussed extensively on talk (and which there is concensus on) the nature of the group JIDF recieved press coverage for is critical to understanding the JIDF. It is one thing to say the JIDF aims to close groups that are in its opinion antisemitic, it is another to have third part references validating that the group in question was indeed widely considered antisemitic. As for WP:ONEEVENT, the take over of the group is a single event. The JIDF is an organisation and will most likely be notable again in the future. To remove an article now would be to raising the bar significantly from common practice, and an insult to those editors who have been working on this (these editors come from many different perspectives on this and have worked hard to reach common ground - the common thread is that we all agree an article is of benefit to Wikipedia). Oboler (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn or Relist Most of the keep !votes at the original AfD acknowledged that the group probably wasn't notable for more than one event or a momentary burst of publicity. Despite heroic efforts, nobody has been able to provide more sources in the 12 days since the first AfD to better establish the group's notability. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The time span of the second AFD was too shot, and this AFD was a good chance to collect different POVs about the article, but deletion while the {{icu}} tag still on top of page was not logic, if any one checked the talk page, he will notice that the contributing editors understood the side effects of the subject and stated a joined effort to solve all of them step by step, the evaluation must be after they finished their work not before, please Malcolm X, I want you to take my point of view and put it in the form of the options listed above, I selected you as your comment was the most neutral one from my POV, and I don’t know how to add my comment to this stack.--Puttyschool (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse keep It is not the function of DRV to re-run an AfD, but to discuss whether the AfD was done correctly. It was.--Bedivere (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment I just spent some time cleaning up the article, verifying the citations, digging up some basic Who/What/When/Where info, and adding quotes from the few reliable sources available. Take a look and see what you think. Personally, I don't think this is really an "organization"; it's one guy, Daniel Appletree, with several Facebook groups, a web site, and a large buddy list. Notability, per WP:WEB and WP:ORG, is marginal. But there's some non-trivial press coverage in major news media, so we probably should keep it. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... no disrespect, but... all the RS references refer to a David Appletree as the spokes person. I don't there are even unreliable sources about a Daniel Appletree. ;) At any rate it is not unusual for an organisation to have a single spokes person, particularly a campaigning organisation. Unreliable sources (i.e. the messages from the group etc) point to a number of people coordinating the campaigns, at the same time there is nothing in a RS to support your OR claim that it is one person. (If it is he clearly doesn't sleep). Oboler (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is a rather messy review because two closures are being appealed in one. I certainly endorse the second closer when they say a second afd is way too soon. I want to investigate things a bit more before expressing an opinion on the original closure.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse keep Sorry, my comments are above but I didn't explicitly "vote". Oboler (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse keep This was the first article that I edited on Wikipedia. However, when I went back to continue editing, I noticed that most of my work was destroyed by one user. Now after the information has been removed and the JIDF seems irrelevant, the users that deleted the information are trying to have it totally removed from Wikipedia. The JIDF is a valuable growing group and they have done more than "delete one Facebook group" as was stated above. If the users that want to delete would check the history on the JIDF web page, they'd see much activity. For example, the JIDF just took over a new Facebook group which was supporting the terrorist organization Hezbollah and it had over 118,000 members in it. Shachna1979 (talk)
Endorse Keep:Like it was said above, this is not to see if some thing should be re-listed but to see if the AfD was correct and it was. Rob^{Not an admin} 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse keep I didn't know I was supposed to do this above either. Sorry. --Einsteindonut (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse keep and file RFCU to find out who these socks are. Bstone (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment part of the problem I have with this article is that whenever someone questions the notability of the subject, someone else assumes conspiracy and bad faith. When I started a new AFD (which was apparently too soon after the first one, sorry about that), another editor decided to post this on the article talk page, which to me amounts to little more than an assumption of bad faith as well as an attempt at vote stacking [1]. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Tramel

I believe this debate was incorrectly closed as delete. It was closed after only a day despite several keep votes - there certainly wasn't consensus. No policy was quoted as to the reason for this 'rapid delete' and dispute discussions with the closing admin User Talk:Moreschi#James_Tramel I still see no reason for the early close as delete. Closing admin has quoted WP:BLPBAN as his reason so I'm not sure this is the right place for review but as it seems the most logical place I've started it here. Comments in the AfD suggest that the article was properly referenced so I'd be surprised if WP:BLP has been breached. I have no idea whether this article should be deleted as I've not seen it - I'm asking for review purely on procedural grounds. Dpmuk (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn; there was a number of keep votes, from regular AfDers, who would have caught this if it were a clear WP:BLP issue. It's not a clear negative bio, despite what the closer said; the news is all about him becoming a priest and respected member of society, not the (well-documented) crimes he did. Just looking at the first article in the Google search[2] should make it obvious that this is not an open and shut AfD, unless you're an inclusionist, in which it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and allow AfD to finish. I can understand WP:BLP concerns but with the exception of one sentence alleging professional misconduct (I did find an RS, here), the article was thoroughly sourced and not negatively written. Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion notes that "If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." The policy goes on to say that "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by BLP summary deletion." Whether this individual is a worthy candidate or not according to WP:BLP1E should be decided in that AfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Overturn'This was not a consensus decision, but done as an administrative rapid delete under BLP. In essence, he is a reformed criminal who became an ordained priest, and was subsequently suspended for an accusation misconduct unrelated to his prior conviction (neither admitted nor proven, but responsibly reported). There are good newspaper sources for both the earlier and later parts of the story. This seems to be of fairly clear general interest. "One event," is clearly not applicable--there were three distinctive events over a 23 year period. There were keeps or strong keeps, some explained in detail, from six responsible editors, and 2 deletes besides the nom. and the closer. The keeps relied on one event, which seems contrary to the plain facts of the matter--he would have been notable even without the subsequent suspension from office. consensus, presumably based on personal conviction. DGG (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Overturn Based on the arguments presented at AfD there are perfectly valid justifications provided that the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard supported by reliable and verifiable sources. As there are valid claims of notability, combined with a consensus for retention, the "rapid delete" seems to be in violation of process. Alansohn (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Relist. The deletion was out of process, but there are BLP issues present, we can't just overturn and ignore them. Wizardman 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with a relist, but what BLP issues are present? It's incredibly verifiable and notable that he's an ex-con (convicted of murder) who became a priest; dealing with the issues behind the suspension can be handled on the talk page, not through AfD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and relist, per DGG. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Overturn and relist DGG gave the rationale well. I'll note that I had looked at the AFD due to its deletion sorting, looked at the article, looked at some of the sources, and decided that this was perfectly appropriate to leave to community decision making. I can't see any good reason for speedy deletion. GRBerry 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz

As the article on MyWikiBiz was deleted through AFD previously (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWikiBiz (third nomination)), I thought bringing this to DRV (as I did with the Wikipedia Review article) would be a good step. While the old version of the article failed to assert sufficient notability, since April 2007, a lot more sources have appeared, most notably including Jonathan Zittrain's book. I believe the draft version of this article, which you can see for your edification at User:Neil/mwb, meets all the neccessary criteria for an article; it is neutral, it is referenced, reliably sourced, and it asserts notability. I am looking for a green light to move into article space. Please note this is not an AFD discussion. Thanks. Neıl ☄ 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Move into article space as nominator and creator of draft article. Please note I have notified each administrator who has either deleted or undeleted the article of this discussion, based on the deletion log of MyWikiBiz. Neıl ☄ 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Reject A large number of the citations are internal to Wikipedia or MWB. Additionally, several of the exterior citations appear to be coverage of Wikipedia or blogs, where MWB is incidentally mentioned. I'm not seeing the widespread or lasting coverage I'd expect for such a topic. MBisanz ^talk 13:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Of the 16 citations, 3 are Wikipedia (wholly appropriate as a ref for the topic (e.g., referencing the COI policy, which is mentioned in the article), and one is internal to MWB. 4 out of 16 isn't really a "large number". Zittrain's book, Die Welt, the Post-Gazette, the Chronicle of HE and the AP article are all widespread coverage that meet WP:WEB and WP:N. Neıl ☄ 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I am seeing 2 of the 16 sourced to MWB, 3 sourced to WP, the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece is from the Chronicle's online blog, not the actual magazine, then we have the Attack of the Show blog entry, The Future of the Internet covers it in under 3 paragraphs of a lengthy chapter, and contradicts other sources, saying that MWB is dormant (not active). The Heise article is about Friedrich Metz with 2 sentences referencing his coverage of MWB if I'm reading the german correctly. The Register article is about Jimbo and mentions MWB in passing, The Pittsburgh Gazette article looks like a copy of the MSNBC piece, not a separate coverage incident. The SBWire piece never even mentions the term MyWikiBiz and is a press release, not independent coverage. I'm seeing barely any MWB-focused, independent sources here. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't seeing very well? I still only count one reference sourced to MWB, being #3 (unless you mean #7, which is a press release from MWB, sourced to 24-7 Press Release). Including and referencing a company's mission statement and the press release announcing its inception is hardly a bad thing. The CofHE piece is still fine - or is the Chronicle's web coverage not reliable? Three lengthy paragraph's in Zittrain's book is MWB-focused, detailed and independant. The Pittsburgh Gazette article is, yes, mostly the same as the MSNBC piece, but the fact multiple reputable media sources picked up the AP piece is further evidence of notability. Neıl ☄ 14:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with Neil) Comment The issue here is inclusion-worthiness, which is usually determined on the grounds of notability, the encyclopedic/discrete nature of the topic, and whether or not there are conflict of interest/BLP issues. I don't think anyone would accuse Neil of the latter, an individual business/website is certainly an encyclopedic and discrete topic, and the article asserts and proves its notability through the following coverage: MSNBC, Chronicle of Higher Education, Die Welt, paragons of reliability whose coverage could not credibly be deemed trivial. Your objection seems to boil down to "too many bad references", which seems irrelevant to the inclusion-worthiness of the topic. It has enough good references, ergo it is notable. What's the real problem? Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to article space A significantly improved article that includes multiple reliable sources that cover MyWikiBiz as the primary subject. While some of the blog and Wikipedia sources could be questioned, sources from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Chronicle of Higher Education are the kinds of reliable and verifiable sources that satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan - note there's only one blog as best I can see (and that's the official blog of a topic notable enough for its own article). Are any other sources blogs?Neıl ☄ 13:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with both you and the comments from Skomorokh above. I have no issue with the inclusion of these blog/Wiki references in this context. While there might be justifiable issues if these were the only sources, my point was that the bulk of the article is referenced by ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the topic and establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Approve notable, encyclopedic and free of spam/coi/blp concerns. Skomorokh 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to article space appears free of problems and well sourced George The Dragon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Move to article space Sources covering all bases. Internal sources are required to show internal policies (doh) Jacina (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
'Accept' into article space in its present form, regardless of earlier history of the article. DGG (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose still no evidence of notability, fails any test of a business getting into Wikipedia. If it weren't for the internal Wikipedia debates that have used it as a test case, we wouldn't be having this debate. The company perhaps merits mention in an article on Wikipedia, and might usefully redirect there.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This is self-referential. It's only notable because there was a fuss on Wikipedia. Nobody outside Wikipedia would regard it as notable.--Bedivere (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Self-reference alone is not an argument for not having an article; absence of sources from outside Wikipedia might be. We have plenty of articles related to Wikipedia "fusses", such as Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, which exists because people outside Wikipedia regard it as notable. The article's ample sources are overwhelmingly from independent reliable sources outside of Wikipedia discussing the fuss. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- WP:ASR is a style guide. It means we don't write things like "a webpage, such as the on you are reading now". It says absolutely nothing about having articles on subjects related to Wikipedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  - WP:ASR#Writing about Wikipedia itself does address the Wikipedia issue, but this article clearly meets the standard set there. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    - Ok, yes it does mention it. The point is that it doesn't say anything remotely like "no references to Wikipedia" or "avoid articles about Wikipedia" or "the notability standard is higher for things related to Wikipedia". JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Support move It's a colorful part of Wikipedia's history, and it's received a suprisingly substantial amount of coverage. (Arguably more than Mzoli's.) But if an independent article is deemed unacceptable, some of this should at least be merged somewhere. Is MyWikiBiz mentioned anywhere in the article space? Zagalejo^^^ 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per MBisanz. Almost all the citations are in reference to the Wikipedia community rejecting his business overtures, and not about his business itself. No evidence of notability for businesses at all. If the bar for inclusion is "someone, somewhere, mentioned you" then that will open the floodgates. --David Shankbone 21:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
allow recreation with Niel's draft Holding my nose here a fair bit. This appears to just meet our notability criteria. Having Kohs interviewed about MyWikibiz on such items as Attack of the Show and discussion in Zittrain's book make this notable. Also, if this is recreated can we please have the sensibility not to do something disruptive like nominating it at a DYK? (Aside from the fact that self-referential DYKs make us look like dicks) Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't think the revised version meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards for organizations. I reviewed every citation in the current version (and my rusty old german was barely up to the task). All were either passing mentions in an article primarily about another topic or were articles about the controversy with Wikipedia, not about the company itself. As Troikoalogo said, however, a redirect to the appropriate page about Wikipedia and the conflict might be appropriate. But not a stand-alone article based on those sources. Rossami (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- How does it not meet the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- The controversy with Wikipedia is part of this company's history. How are those articles that mention the controversy not about the company? And this article discusses the inspiration for the company and its subsequent development, so it's not purely about the controversy. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, 6th Lord of Monroy

Despite Spanish Lords having no automatic seat in the Parliament, in Spain the title of Lord is as much a title as Baron, Viscount, Count, Marquess and Duke, and as so is recognized in the Elenco de Grandezas y Titulos Nobiliarios Españoles. Beside that, Lords, as other titulars, as their owners, were the actual rulers of their towns, as were and are the Alcaldes, Mayors, and such. For that reason, they should be considered at the same level as such. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the modern descendants, but he was a 17th century figure, and I think they may still have been sufficiently important then to count as notable. 16:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh... 1: I don't know why I got a DRV notice on this. 2: There's no article history. If there a typo somewhere or, what's going on with this? Wizardman 16:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hernán Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy, User:Moonriddengirl found it for me. Wizardman 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Can this be temp undeleted so we can see the content?--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- The contents of this page at time of deletion consisted of one line about his title and three long paragraphs about his geneology (marriage, children, distant relatives, etc). If this page had been cut back to encyclopedic standards, it would have read "Don Hernán (sometimes called Fernando) Rodríguez de Monroy y Orellana, el Bezudo, 6th Lord of Monroy, was a Spanish military and nobleman. He was Lord of Las Quebradas and a Knight of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and its Sergeant-Major and Commander of Moratanos." and maybe had a succession link to his father, the 5th Lord of Monroy. (By the way, if you follow that link, it's almost identical to the deleted page about the 6th Lord. Most of the discussion is not about the subject but about increasingly distant relations and what they did. Actually, go back a version in history because I'm going to try to clean that page up in the next few minutes.) Rossami (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion. DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed properly, not to advance new arguments (or repeat old ones) as to why the article should be kept. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite. If someone has new arguments that are relevant, there's really nowhere other than DRV to reasonably discuss whether or not to relist. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Were useful sources for building an encyclopedia article presented, this would readily be overturned. genealogica.net is not such a source. The others were dead tree, but supporting only genealogical data in the article, so absent further evidence I doubt they can support an encyclopedia article. Generally speaking, nobles are not inherently notable in the sense we use. See WP:BIO for the explanation of our general notability standards as applied to people. The true test is whether we can find adequate sourcing to support an encyclopedia article. At the moment, endorse deletion as such sourcing is not in evidence. GRBerry 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
endorse deletion per Stifle and GRBerry. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Anne Allman

She was on 16 movies. Sixteen!... How can that be not notable? I've seen biographies in here with half of it!... The deleters didn't see them from between the many small guest starrings she did and which alledgedly weren't enough to make her notable. G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Look through this search and see if you can find some secondary sources. That would make her notability claim bulletproof. Plasticup ^T/C 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment--the AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Anne Allman DGG (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse deletion Process properly followed. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse closure: nominator doesn't explain why the closing was incorrect, seems like he just wants AFD2. Wizardman 17:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flat_Daddy (closed)

[edit] 19 August 2008

[edit] Template:Irrel

The template added an inline subscript Irrelevant? to the statement. The consensus for its deletion was very weak, and I find myself in need of this template in other articles (just as before it was created). The goal of this inline template is to point out statements that may violate WP:UNDUE by being irrelevant to the main subject (the explanation of the template read: The material in the vicinity of this tag may contain the information irrelevant to the article's main topic); it is an inline version of {{Off-topic}} and offers similar but singificantly different focus to {{dubious}} or {{POV-statement}}. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Closer's comment The consensus was that the template added an inline opinion of the one placing it about the relevance of a sentence, rather then an objective observation based on policy or guidelines, like {{dubious}} or {{POV-statement}}. Relevancy however is strictly content-based, and content should only be discussed on the talk page, not in-line in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask why this DRV is being placed only now for a deletion discussion from nearly five months ago? Stifle (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

possibly because there are so many questionale deletions in Wikipedia that it is taking a longtime to examine them all? (smile) DGG (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Because this is when I got around to this issue :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Piccalo

Everything on Tony Piccalo's page is correct and it was deleted for no reason. 20:58, 19 August 2008 User:Manbearpig321

If I undeleted it and AfD'ed it, the verdict would almost certainly be "Non-notable school teacher" or similar. Someone else db-tagged it as NN: I merely obeyed him and deleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion The article was deleted as failing to assert significance under criterion WP:CSD#A7. An article may be deleted speedily if it does not "give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." Having been employed as a high school football coach for four years is not an indication of importance or significance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse deletion per Moonriddengirl. I have reviewed the article and didn't see anything that would indicate he would qualify as notable under WP:ATHLETE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Endorse speedy-deletion. I'm generally skeptical of A7 deletions but this is one of the best examples of appropriate use that I've seen in a long time. Rossami (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)