Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 March 21
2007 March 23 >

22 March 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Xtorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I created this page, and I know my information was accurate, all photos used on the page were documented as being either a low-res screen shot or a low-res logo. I do not believe there was any major bias present as all information was based on 100% facts. I can find no reason for it to have been deleted. Xtorrent is a filesharing (bittorrent) client. It exists, plain and simple, so what's going on? Dreamwinder 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Doctor Who people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

No consensus to merge or delete. Overturn Tim! 17:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand the objection. The decision was made to listify all the children of this category. There is already a category for Dr. Who lists, so this category is redundant. If Tim! is objecting to the listifying of the children, he should make that clear. -- Samuel Wantman 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection to speedy close What exactly is the justification for denying people the right to comment on this? I am in favour of the original decision, but not of this denial of the right to comment. Choalbaton 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence Radiant!'s close was actually contentious, this is a private fight which I suspect both parties regret allowing to get to this point. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Progressive Bloggers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|VfD|AfD|AfD2)
Blogging Tories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)

These two topics went up for deletion a year ago, and an overwhelming consensus was established that the two needed to be treated equivalently, either both kept or both deleted. Instead, what happened was that Blogging Tories got deleted but Progressive Bloggers got kept. It came to DRV and Blogging Tories was reinstated. More recently, they went up for AFD again, and the exact opposite result occurred; this time Progressive Bloggers was deleted and Blogging Tories was kept.

The issue, in a nutshell, is that these two blogging groups represent the two ends of the political spectrum within the Canadian blogosphere. They haven't had differing levels of media coverage from each other; they don't have significantly different levels of web traffic from each other. It constitutes bias to decide that one of them is notable while the other one isn't, because there simply isn't any valid criterion on which it's possible to say that they fall on opposite sides of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. People who voted to keep them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. People who voted to delete them agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Lefties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently. Righties agreed that they needed to be treated equivalently.

(ETA: I should add, as well, that equivalent sources, mostly from the same organizations, were presented in support of both groups; the result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources.)

Thus, I'm putting this up for DRV since the results have been inconsistent: do we keep both, or do we delete both? There's simply no case to be made that we can keep one and delete the other. Bearcat 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blogging Tories" is the proper name of the thing. We can't rename things at random. Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion of Progressive Bloggers No Opinion on Blogging Tories-Unilateral restoration of Progressive Bloggers by Bearcat despite a valid AfD, and especially because of the fact he was involved in that AfD was unfounded. This article may technically be a candidate for speedy deletion under G4, as no new information to establish notability has been brought forward since the AfD was closed in February. In the February AfD of Blogging Tories sufficient sources were found for a keep consensus to emerge, such sources have not been found for Progressive Bloggers either in the AfD, or since then. WP:V is not negotiable, and to assert that a non-notable article must be kept for the sake of balance is not a valid argument.--RWR8189 18:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way: what if deletion discussions resulted in the conclusion that United States Republican Party was notable enough for Wikipedia, but United States Democratic Party wasn't, or vice versa, because two different closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources? Don't you see how that could make Wikipedia appear inappropriately biased toward one political party? Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Build the straw man somewhere else. I have yet to see these equivalent sources you claim exist, and they are certainly not present in the article you restored or at the AfD. In the Blogging Tories AfD newscasts and newsreports that contained only information about the Blogging Tories were presented. We have yet to be presented with verifiable and attributable sources with regards to Progressive Bloggers. This wasn't a case of the closers making different determinations based on the same sources, it is different results based one having sources, and the other lacking them.--RWR8189 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to close this speedily because it conflates deletion decisions without evidence that individual deletions were in error. The underlying policy questions strikes me as one for WP:RFC. ~ trialsanderrors 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: an overwhelming consensus was established by virtually every participant in both rounds of AFD debates that the two had to be treated equivalently. Even people who voted to delete in the first round still viewed retaining both as preferable to keeping one and deleting the other. Even voters who were actually associated with one of the two groups agreed that deleting both would be preferable to keeping one and deleting the other. If you think there's a legitimate case to be made that Wikipedia can view one as notable and the other not, then you're going to have to overturn that consensus first. Bearcat 19:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have to overturn anything. Are you challenging brenneman's closure or Yuser's closure? If so you should state this in the nomination. Instead you're simply creating a procedural mess, on top of undeleting the article out of process. ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two different closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of the same sources, on two articles that already had a clearly established consensus around the necessity to treat them equivalently to each other because they represent the two ideological ends of the same fundamental topic and have largely the same sources supporting them both. If there's a procedural mess here, I'm not the one who created it. Bearcat 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm asking you for the last time before I speedily close this as an invalid nomination: Are you challenging brenneman's closure or Yuser's closure? From your actions you seem to be challenging brenneman's closure. If you get the ok to restore it here, you're free to joint nominate them at AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again: I'm challenging the inconsistency of these two results; I'm perfectly happy to accept deletion of both if that's the consensus that emerges. But when the same sources are being evaluated differently on two connected articles, the status quo cannot stand as is. So what other process exists to resolve the matter, exactly, if discussing it here is invalid? Bearcat 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both results, if one group has multiple non-trivial independent sources and the other does not, it is not our fault, and we are not obliged to include any article because an article on some related topic exists. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"One group has multiple non-trivial independent sources and the other does not" is not the situation at hand. They have equivalent sources which were evaluated differently by two different closers: one made a judgement call on the quality of the sources, while the other one didn't. The sources themselves, however, were equivalent to each other. Also, the raw numbers count on Progressive Bloggers was 5 D to 4 K, which hardly constitutes a clear consensus. Bearcat 19:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both. It's not uncommon for AfDs on related articles to come to inconsistent results. I don't think that is something that's going to change. However, in this case, everything else being equal, we ought to have some consistency and, generally speaking, the default position is to keep. Agent 86 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Objection to this on the grounds of inconsistency is not valid in any way I can figure. So apparently these two groups have some similarity in the opinions of some editors - so what? This is irrelevant to our purposes here. The claim of bias is quite a stretch. Friday (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result at hand was obtained not because one group had better or more valid sources than the other, but because the two closers came to opposite conclusions about the validity of equivalent sources, sometimes even the same sources. Why is Source X proof of notability in one case and not proof of notability in the other? Bearcat 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse both closures. I don't see a consensus that the sources are equivalent, but I feel like I'm missing something. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore both The two articles are different in quality; the Tories seem to have at this point a much higher quality job of editing, and their page is much simpler, more factual, and less devoted to internal arguments than the Progressives; perhaps this may have influenced the AfDs. .But the two are equivalently notable and article-worthy. Acceptance of a procedure that goes one way on one throw of the dice, and the opposite the next time, is like--well, like making decisions by throwing dice. Since the WP process has proven itself by clear example unable to be used objectively in this case, we should simply let the articles be, in the spirit of doing no harm--and hope that the two will refrain from using WP as a game of chance in the future. In general, if there is to be any confidence in the fairness of deletion procedures, the closers should try to decide equitable when there are multiple examples (I note that CfD usually does try to maintain consistency fairly well& unifies discussions as appropriate.) DGG 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that equivalent notability has been established between the two articles? I agree with your sentiments in principle, but it doesn't seem to be the reality of this situation. We have seen independent and non-trivial coverage of the Tories, as of now such sources have not been presented in regards to Progressive Bloggers.--RWR8189 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both The two articles are about two very important parts of the Canada political scene. While they may not show up as exremely important on an international scale, they must be included if Canadian politics is to be treated seriously by wikipedia. Jason Cherniak 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your basic argument isWP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL? WP:V is not negotiable, either we make exceptions for everything or nothing. The policy based reasoning for overturning the closure of Progressive Bloggers seems to be virtually non-existant.--RWR8189 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both If closing admins would properly place the burden upon those seeking deletion in AfDs you would not see such inconsistent results. "When in doubt keep" should have a leveling effect. Instead we get wild swings. Edivorce 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Townsend-Warner history prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The information was based on the magazine 'Prep School Magazine'. The Townsend-Warner history prize is very well known throughout England, and I thought that Wikipedia might be improved if such a page was added. I'm sorry to realise that this was not the case. Kobayashis 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the first deletion (another mistaken "no context," apparently), but not the second (I trust that it was a copyvio in that case). As you were the creator the first time, was the content the same in both deletions? If so, it's possibly a copyvio in both as well, and you shouldn't have a problem with making an article that isn't a copyright violation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of copyright violation, allow new article which establishes notability by reference to non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice, just as Guy has it. DGG 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bloodless bullfighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Woa.... wait a minute!!!! I just got wind of this "so-called" deletion request by Fethers. What is up with this person???? "Bloodless" Bullfighting is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE from the Spanish style..... like the fact that it is "BLOODLESS"... the bull does not get killed. Fethers has no idea what he is talking about other than he has been hounding that particular article from the get go and the history can speak for itself. This should not even be here... nor should it be up for a debate. The aficions of the Spanish style will even attest to the fact that the "bloodless" style cannot co-mingle within the same realm of the Spanish style because of the "end" part of a bullfight.... where the bull gets killed. Contrary to anything that fethers has to say, the article is NOT any form of publicity other than making the public aware that there is another style to bullfighting. fethers is basically full of himself. The mere fact that you guys agreed to deleting this article served NO justice to the Portuguese people or to the art of this culture. This is un-real and I would like to request that the article be "undeleted" and bring respect back to it. I cannot believe that Wiki-admins made this decision solely on one person's request and did NOTHING to notify me to defend the rights of this article. This was an "unjust" decision.... I am at a loss for words.--Webmistress Diva 06:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Procedural DRV request on behalf of user by me fethers 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • Does your article have reliable sources? —Dark•Shikari[T] 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose to deletion -- Yes, there are and I had mentioned in the "discussion page" of the article that when time permits, I would include the source and I had also mentioned that I would fix the article so that it was within "Wiki" standards. This is a matter of a "power trip" by one particular user named ...fethers. Let's look at this "realistically", ok. For starters, I do not get paid to sit on "Wikipedia" all day long, so unfortunately, I cannot focus all of my time trying to get an article up to par with Wiki's standards. So for the upteenth time, who the heck is this fethers person and why is he/she so eager to delete an article that he/she has no clue as to what the subject is about. --Webmistress Diva 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reliable sources other than those written by User:Pebs96 on her website. See the conflict of interest discussion linked in the AfD. fethers 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Fethers' argument. There were 0 sources that were independent of the contributor. From the linked-to diff on COI/N: "Ranch Cardoso website is really the only accurate "English" speaking website on the net." You'd think that something in the USA would attract more English-speaking coverage, even if it's about a traditionally Hispanic topic. Veinor (talk to me) 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose to deletion and Against Fethers arguments -- Ranch Cardoso may be the only accurate "English-speaking" coverage on the net, but it DOES NOT mean that there are no publications and articles about bloodless bullfighting in California. It just so happened that I came up with the idea to putting all of the information under one roof.... what's the harm in that? And contrary to what any wikipedians say or think, Ranch Cardoso is NOT a commercial site.--Webmistress Diva 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If one person has the power to gather all the sources there are on a topic and put them on one site, there is unquestionably not enough coverage to even relist the AfD. -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose to deletion and Against Amarkov's arguments -- I think you are mistaken. I SAID, there are PLENTY of publications and articles that this subject can be sourced from. Also, when I said housing it under one roof, I didn't think I have to explain in details that I put it in my own words. Just because the information is on a website does not mean that there's no other sites that exist. There are plenty, but the Ranch Cardoso happens to have videos and other details that the other sites do not have. Just like Wikipedia, the Ranch Cardoso website is an on-going project, currently going through a face-lift and researching more information. This is extremely draining to have to explain over and over and over again! --Webmistress Diva 04:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) ← Only one bolded opinion please. ~ trialsanderrors 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Lack of reliable sources, and only a single source given, means that this article does not have enough coverage in non-trivial third-party sources. Add to that the conflict of interest factor, and, as far as I can see, there is no reason to relist the AFD. --sunstar nettalk 09:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - per the original nominator's argument. If there's anything here, just recreate citing reliable sources this time. Perfectly valid AfD on both grounds of arguments and numbers. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Tecumseh Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

Nobody objected to deletion, but User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". CFD does not have a quorum, and regularly works on the principle that if nobody objects to a nomination, it passes. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 10:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Air Bud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|CfD)

Has a reasonable debate with a clear consensus to delete; one of the original "keep" commenters even changed his mind as a result of the arguments. Nevertheless. User:Tim! closed it as a "no consensus". I'm afraid I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Overturn and delete. >Radiant< 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete per Radiant. Consensus had obviously been arrived at here, I'm surprised that a closing admin would have failed to take note of it.
Xdamrtalk 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever objections you have to Radiant's conduct, or indeed to that of any other administrator/editor, do not give you carte blanche to discount clearly expressed consensus. The consensus was clearly to delete—disregarding this, subordinating it to your own desire to make a WP:POINT, is most unbecoming.
Xdamrtalk 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is just bad style Tim. Radiant's conduct is not of importance here. Yours is. And by pointing fingers you do not improve your status in my eyes. This is only a minor issue, but if you do not see what the problem is maybe you should consider filing a self-RfC for some soulsearching. CharonX/talk 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Melissa Scott (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Notable individual; Wikipedia needs to have a page about her. Simply getting rid of the article is an "easy out." Badagnani 06:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm familiar with your favoring of deletions, which are well known. That aside, the solution should be a re-creation of the page with "just the facts." Of course I don't agree with the quotes you present; the solution to those is simply editing to make the article NPOV, not an "easy out" by deleting entirely the bio article of a notable individual. Badagnani 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course, the editors who haunt deletion-related pages always support one another in deletions, whether they are justified (or logical) or not. In this case, however, you are incorrect. The deleted page says nothing about the page being able to be recreated; in fact, it says entirely the opposite. This is a notable individual and Wikipedia needs to have a biography page about her. I have already stated that I do not agree with the former POV text in the article; that is what editing is for! Deleting was an "easy out." Badagnani 06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please assume good faith and be civil - don't make accusations against other editors. The article actually contains no such assertion, see WP:BIO. --Coredesat 07:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I see illogical actions made, then supported, I reserve the right to be critical. You are wrong in stating that the Melissa Scott page states that it may be recreated. In fact, it states the opposite: "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." Badagnani 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the oblique comment above is an assertion that this individual has no notability, why is it that she is constantly on television (the NBC network, throughout the United States)? This is getting just ridiculous. Badagnani 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hold on -- it seems that the result of the discussion was KEEP -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Scott_%28pastor%29 . The deletion of the bio article about this notable individual, as well as all relevant discussion, appears to have been a mistake. Please take care of this immediately. Badagnani 08:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See above -- the result of the vote was KEEP. There seems to have been a mistake in the deletion of the article because I can find no discussion leading to a Delete vote. You state that "editing" might be used; however, in case you haven't checked the page does not allow that, and in fact states "This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." All the comments below notwithstanding, it remains extremely embarrassing that a major encyclopedia would not have contain an article or, in fact, any information about this individual who is constantly on national TV--and, in fact, ban such information. That isn't the stamp of a "free" encyclopedia, it's more indicative of the efforts of a small group of delete-page-regulars mandating content (or lack thereof) for the WP community as a whole, and the world. This bad decision cannot stand. Badagnani 17:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two "bad decisions" we have to choose from, which is the worse? Creating a biographical article with nothing in the way of decent source to create it from, an article which we already know will be a magnet for POV-pushing, WP:BLP-violating anons? Or failing to have a biographical article for an individual upon whom it seems every other major news source has also failed to report? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's clear that not to have an article about a notable individual (on television all the time, all over the country) is very detrimental and embarrassing to our encyclopedia. The result of the last vote was KEEP. If there is a worry about unsourced or defamatory text being added, do what we do to Bill O'Reilly or similar pages: protect so that new or anon users may not edit. It's amazing that I need to even explain our core principles here. Badagnani 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Badagnani keeps complaining that it is ridiculous that such a "notable" individual should not have their own Wikipedia article. Well, if she is so notable, why has no one, including those who are most insistent that we have an article on her, been able to provide us reliable sources? God knows I've looked for them myself and can't find any -- not so much as a small-town paper fluff piece. The closest we have ever come for having the reliable sources we need -- and by "closest", I mean "not close enough by a long shot" -- is anonymous editors angrily asserting that if we just looked at the correct court records (none of which we have been given citations for) we'd know for ourselves that it's true. And we definitely do not have sources reliable enough for the major defamatory allegation made against Melissa Scott, which anons still keep trying to sneak in to other articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. First, there are no independent sources cited. Second, it reads as part resume and part advertisement for her charity gala. Third, "keep and source" is not an option for WP:BLP articles - no sources means delete because as Jimbo says we don't have articles on living individuals based on "I heard it somewhere". Fourth, I am having a hard time seeing what the claim to notability is supposed to be anyway. Married to a couple of guys. So what? Few !votes anyway, if this individual is genuinely notable then a much much better article can be written by applying WP:FORGET. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There are no reliable sources for this article and honestly the number of people committed to keeping this article neutral are far outnumbered by the people that interject tabloid quality material about this person. If the article is undeleted, it is unavoidable that we will be back at this same position in less than 6 months. . -- Kurios555 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edit history restored behind screen. ~ trialsanderrors 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, revert and relist WP:BLP says in relevant part "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion." (emphasis added). It took all of 60 seconds to find a NPOV version, namely that from 31 July 2006 by fuddlemark. It was easy to find because it is explicitly mentioned in the last AFD. I don't know what the right answer for this article is, but I do know that the deletion was contrary to policy, and that is enough reason to list it at AFD. We don't have to revert that far back however, there are newer acceptable versions in the history. I think the version of 17 October 2006 would be fine, and there may be even newer ones (the history was restored while I was doing further investigation). GRBerry 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion at this time - I tried to source this article reliably before it was deleted, and found it impossible. I have added the only RS sources I can find to the talk page, and would suggest leaving the talk page open for more sources as they come available. Then we can revisit starting up a new article. There isn't enough RS sourcing to have a standalone article, and she can be mentioned in the Gene Scott article. There isn't anything else that can be reliably sourced about her except that she took over for her late husband. The previous incarnation of this page was fraught with poorly sourced negative info. As more RS become available, my opinion could change. - Crockspot 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Internet-only" sources are not the only sources we may use, or rely on. Even so, this is a figure who appears on national television throughout the U.S. all the time, and should have her own article. Badagnani 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a url is not a requirement for a proper cite, but the source still must be reliable and secondary. The problem was there was quite a bit of unsourced and poorly sourced, and originally researched negative info. The BLP problems were too pervasive. If you have other reliable sources, cite them on the talk page, as I have done. Crockspot 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)further comment I would just like to add that I have seen her on television several times this year, probably the most religious programming I've watched in my entire life. I do find her interesting, and would like to see an article when we can write one that is well sourced, and not defamatory. When there are enough sources, I will be the first person to bring this back here for another review. - Crockspot 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and re-list for AfD. If there are more sources, let's see them. DGG 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if everybody knows who she is, but she's on TV all the time, sometimes on two channels at once, at least here in California. Presumably her church buys the air time for the programs, which are lectures on linguistic analysis of Bible passages. I don't feel compelled to research this one, so I have no opinion, but I wanted to throw this tidbit out in case it's not clear from the article. ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This was deleted out of process but not out of policy: WP:BLP and WP:ATT are completely failed here. I would change to "allow recreation" if reliable secondary sources were shown, but between Antaeus Feldspar and Crockspot, I think we've done our due diligence, and the article cannot remain if unsourceable. Mangojuicetalk 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relist stubbed version, per Amarkov below. The stubbed version is okay, but if that's all that can be found now, the article might still need deleting for notability concerns (or for worries of future violations of WP:BLP), but that's for a debate to decide. Mangojuicetalk 10:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. With an article on a living person, the decision is not "Are there any sources someone can find?" According to WP:BLP, the decision is "Are there sources that either are in the article or can be found and added within a short time?", which the article did not meet, seeing as nobody actually added much of anything in the way of sourcing. Keep the talk page open for a while, in case some sources do turn up, but until then, it should stay deleted. Regardless of how much she is on TV. -Amarkov moo! 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have written about all that can be written in this article, based on the sources, at the bottom of Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor). It's short and sweet, and those seeking the salacious aspect can go read the RS article cited. (The OC Weekly article even mentions this article being locked down.) I would not object to recreation of the article with this text (or something similar if the wording needs tweaking), and full protection, pending more sourcing and discussion on the talk page. Just a suggestion. Crockspot 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion OK, I sampled the edit history and couldn't find a single sourced version, and quite a couple we want to banish from the history altogether. The only thing I could find from an acceptable source (ocweekly.com) just repeats the rumors (an excellent read though, Wikipedia is mentioned). Edit history is still open if someone wants to take a crack at writing a sourced article on her, but I haven't seen much that looked useable. WP:BLP concerns override WP:N concerns, so until we find a decent version in the history the article should stay deleted. ~ trialsanderrors 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You can't possibly object to anything in the new stub? She is a public figure who is constantly on television throughout the country, giving weekly appearances to hundreds of audience members, and the information given in the stub is easily available. Badagnani 05:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I think she meets the active notability requirement, she's done something that put her in the publich consciousness and given encyclopedic sources she should have an article. So I'm not objecting to posting your stub and running it through AfD, I'm just not recommending keeping the edit history. Some articles are better started from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And if it turns out that documents in the public record do indeed elucidate other things about this individual and her past history before assuming directorship of her late husband's ministry? Wikipedia does not rely strictly on Internet-only sources, I am fairly sure. Badagnani 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these elusive public records? Write up a cite. - Crockspot 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good question. They were discussed in the history but to get new copies I suppose one would need to pay for them, then scan and post them online. The very basic information would of course be her date and place of birth and birth name. Badagnani 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be primary sources, and we don't do investigative journalism here. - Crockspot 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion BLP wins out - if someone wants to have a sourced neutral article, they are entitled to write it and then notability can be handeled at afd. However, simply reverting to an earlier version isn't good enough as it still leaves potentially libellous stuff in the history. Aggressive, invasive surgery is required for this type of thing.--Docg 10:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No, you are incorrect. As stated above more than once, the tag on the deleted article clearly states that a new article may *not* be written! Badagnani 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doc is clearly wrong here. WP:BLP only authorizes deletion when there are zero neutral versions in the history. His claim that it requires deletion when there is at least one failing version is exactly contrary to WP:BLP; so long as there is at least one good version the admin is supposed to revert to that instead of deleting. GRBerry 17:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is this, some sort of "delete page club" with secret rules? If what you say is the case, it needs to be stated on the tag. Badagnani 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the very first revision, from which all other revisions appear derived, contains unsourced controversial statements, there is no way to revert to a version later than that and delete the offending material without severing the page history and thus causing copyright problems. If someone creates an actually new stub that is well-sourced and intends to maintain it against the warring lovers and haters of this person, then there would probably not be a problem. Otherwise, the page was originally and is heavily littered throughout with potentially libellous statements, and was and will be the subject of this warring that will add further such statements. —Centrx→talk • 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Five clicks to jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

SWATJester decided that it was inappropriate, and I object. I at least want a review. He even deleted the talk page where I defended the existence of the page. PhoenixFire296 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as deletor. Article was speedied, recreated, speedied again and salted. Original speedy was as A7, but really should have been A1. Also, was GFDL incompatible off of facebook. Actually, upon further review, it would have qualified under A7 anyway, as "web content".⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: would you please write in normal English instead of "delete page-regular jargon-abbreviation-speak"?--thanks. Also, how may other editors give input here if they don't know what the page consisted of in the first place? Badagnani 07:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:see above under instructions.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Second request: would you kindly write in normal English instead of "delete page-regular jargon-abbreviation-speak"?--thanks. Also, how may other editors give input here if they don't know what the page consisted of in the first place? Badagnani 18:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you. I think the "Discussion" page should be visible so that the discussion that led to the deletion is known to the community of editors. Right now I don't see anything there. Badagnani 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of that page; I just restored the comment into the history. Veinor (talk to me) 22:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly there must be discussion at that page's "Discussion" page that led up to the decision to delete? I still see nothing there. Badagnani 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check the history. There's just one comment. Veinor (talk to me) 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - An Internet search shows that this is simply a "homemade" variation on the Wikipedia game, or Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Granting it a Wikipedia article with no evidence of notability vis-a-vis any other homemade Wikipedia games would allow the creators to gain instant notoriety via having its own Wikipedia article, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Badagnani 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly endorse deletion, even though technically A7 doesn't apply. A7 is for unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content, and this is none of those. And A1 (no centext) seems a bit of a stretch as well. Nevertheless, I think it's obvious that this unremarkable, unsourced, unsourceable example of something made up in school could not possibly survive AfD, and sending it there would be procedure for procedure's sake. Frankly, I'd like to see A7 expanded to cover "works" and "activities" (at least), but that's a discussion for elsewhere. This might be reasonable as something briefly mentioned on a user page, but clearly has no place in the main namespace. Xtifr tälk 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, absolutely justified A7. MaxSem 06:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Eh? Whether technically an A7 or not, it is an excellent use of WP:CSD X27 "What the fuck? Nuke!"--Docg 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - per Doc, to the letter. No reason for us to break our own backs with more bureaucracy over a case of patent NFT. Moreschi Request a recording? 13:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I appreciate the temporary undelete by Veinor, and as I suspected it might, the article certainly shows the total absence of N, RS, Encyclopedic content, and all other factors. It might have saved a little trouble to get rid of it by a prod. But i can't see how it could seriously be defended. DGG 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_22&oldid=1083191890"