Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 9 October 2006

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)

7 October 2006

Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China (Taiwan)

This article was deleted without any notice or warning or discussion. After it was deleted, there was no reason given. Even it was not a well written article, it has been retained for 2 years and nobody proposed a deletion. This is unfair

BN(O) 09:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: That page was deleted as a broken redirect to Immigration arrangements for British passport holders from Hong Kong visiting the Republic of China on Taiwan, which is the page this DRv should probably be about. No opinion because I can't see the deleted content. --ais523 10:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: the article was deleted by Centrx with the comment "Not an encyclopedia article". I'll put a note on their talk page.

• The article was marked for cleanup in August 2005, but that is not a reason to delete. In my opinion parts of this have the potential to be an encyclopaedic article, probably as part of one about British Overseas nationality and/or relations between the PRC and ROC (Taiwan). Most of the article though isn't encyclopaedic but would seem to be useful to a site like Wikitravel. This needs discussion though so list on AfD. Thryduulf 12:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion and add it to WP:NOT as an example of what "Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual" means, especially the part about legal advice. ~ trialsanderrors 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. Clearly falls outside the scope of our project. --Improv 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fleshlight

• First AfD
• Second AfD, speedy closed with an improper closing, although one person during the AfD properly noted that AfD isn't for deletion review.

User:Danny deleted this, citing the new spam suggestions from Brad Patrick. He did not claim it was a WP:OFFICE decision, except that he mentioned that the office recieved complaints about the Fleshlight people not having editorial control. Regardless, given that consensus was to keep the article, we should be editing any possible spam/advert language out, not deleting articles that meet our specifications for notability just because the company wants exclusive input. Overturn and undelete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - Spam through and through. Only notable in its users' heads. pschemp | talk 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not by our basic verifiability policies it's not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as just a spam page to advertise the product. There is little reason to have an article for this - as Danny has said, would people care if this was some random brand of laundry detergent? Cowman109 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Whatever is decided here, this seems to be an encyclopedic topic, in that this product has been reviewed in at least the Village Voice. If a laundry detergent had been reviewed in widely read publications, I'd wonder why we shouldn't include that too. But the deleted version did not really cite any sources. I'm not sure if it was blatent advertising, but it wasn't a very good article. --W.marsh 22:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) (Xoloz, you can consider this a vote to overturn or at least send it back to AfD)
  • The Voice also carries reviews of restaurants. Do we need an article on each of them? Danny 01:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe... Category:Restaurants in New York City. --W.marsh 01:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Again: The Fleshlight is not just notable, but notorious, in the field of sex toys. There are very few product names with that sort of name recognition in the field. That their corporation is behaving badly in wikipedia terms doesn't mean that we should stop covering the product. It's notable, verifyable, and encyclopedic as long as we cover other sex toys, and we do. Georgewilliamherbert 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - If the article was overly commercial then it should be fixed, not deleted. Deletion is the fix of last resort. The company's claims that they want to control the page are bogus and should be ignored as always. Fleshlight is not just notable among the sex toys, it's notorious. Unless this is an official Office action (and we still don't have a confirmation either way... darn it), it should be restored and fixed. Georgewilliamherbert 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - It was deleted because it was overly commercial? So fix the bloody thing, it's notable enough. ShaunES 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC).
• Salt the earth we're drowning in this type of shit, we don't need to revive it. --Doc 01:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • so damn the consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If it is the consensus of this debate to do so, then yes.--Doc 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that this unilateral action by Danny essentially bucked existing consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
        • <shrug>Let's talk about whether this belongs in the encyclopedia, I don't care what danny did.--Doc 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a product guide. DJ Clayworth 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, spam. Naconkantari 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I believe this to be a notable enough product. If advertising is a problem, a redirect to sex toy might be preferable. --NE2 01:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Doc Glasgow. While at least 80% of Wikipedians (that being the conservative estimate of the entire male portion) may have seen this in umpteen banner adverts, that does not make a piece of rubber with a hole in it notable. The armwaving keep votes that inevitably flock to anything that is well-known to people on the Internets - and that is indistinguishable from a vagina-shaped hole in the ground to anyone else (i.e. 99.998% of our actual intended audience, the world's population) - make me wonder why we even tolerate having a pseudo-vote. --Sam Blanning 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

evidence suggests that our audence may be rather interested in all things releated to sex.Geni 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

evidence suggests that our audience may be rather interested in all thing related to sex because our audience is human (mostly) and humans are always and obviously interested in sex otherwise the species would die out. How does this make the fleshlight notable or worthy of inclusion? pschemp | talk 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Fleshlight was well known and notorious before the invention of the World Wide Web. Trying to disqualify it as it's well advertised online now is... silly. Georgewilliamherbert 02:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted - We're not consumer reports. G11 is aimed at chopping this (and a lot of other) stuff --Improv 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

how exactly does G11 apply to this case?Geni 07:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn - One of the most notable sex toys. Obviously we shouldn't have articles on all of them, but we should have articles on the half-dozen or so most notable that are generally known to anyone familiar with the subject, and have been frequently mentioned in the news media (The Village Voice article is not the only one with a mention, just the only extremely recent mention; search Lexis-Nexis if you'd like more.). Village Voice says that it is "one of the best-known boy-centric toys"; I'm more inclined to believe their estimation that I am to believe some random guy on the internet who thinks it's "non-notable" without having researched the subject. However, I wouldn't be opposed to merging into an article on male-centric sex toys, since we don't have a huge amount of material on them in general so multiple articles probably aren't necessary at this time. --Delirium 02:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I get one each on Newsbank and Lexis-Nexis (1 major newspapers, 0 magazines). ~ trialsanderrors 02:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Run some other sex-toy brandnames through those services and see if any of them come up. Those sources are probably self-selected to avoid media which will cover sex toys. Georgewilliamherbert 02:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that would confirm Delirium's claim. I also get 1 hit on university wires, a type of media more inclined to discuss sexual topics. ~ trialsanderrors 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm somewhat conflicted about what to do with this article; google test seems to show notability (circa. 700,000) and Alexa Internet rank of around 7000 also raises notability stakes (granted this is not an article about fleshlight.com) - I'm tending towards overturn however Danny knows his stuff - neutral for now Glen 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted, granted that I'm the one that performed the action on Danny's behalf, but from my understanding of the situation, the owner of the name is resisting its inclusion into Misplaced Pages unless he is allowed to exercise complete editorial control over the contents of the article. As this is not acceptable, and the foundation would rather not have to deal with needless legal action, please leave the page as-is. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't appear to be Brad Patrick whay are you commenting on the foundations legal issues?Geni 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess: Kylu is telling you what she was told. That's the default assumption we should be making, when one editor tells another editor "Danny told me X" or "Brad told me Y" we should, in the absense of evidence to the contrary, assume good faith, and take their word for it. Kylu said she performed the action on Danny's behalf, after all. So are you disbelieveing her then? On what basis? If not, what did you mean, because that is how it reads to me. In general, I do not like people asking for proof (that Danny said something) from editors in good standing. ++Lar: t/c 07:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If the foundation has chosen not to make legal issues public (and as far as I'm aware they have not in this case) it is best not to talk about them even if you happen to know about them for one reason or another. In any case the deletion was carried out by danny and not in his role as a founbdation employee.Geni 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted While the topic of sex toys is notable, this one product's notablility is an illusion. We have lots of products like this out there of no encyclopedic value. As Improv said, "We're not consumer reports".Voice-of-All 06:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per badlydrawnjeff. bbx 06:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, optional relist -- if an article has survived AfD with a keep result, I can't imagine very many situations where it would be appropriate to speedy it. In my eyes, speedy is a tool to save us all time by avoiding a clogged up AfD page, not a tool to avoid or override community consensus. This isn't the forum to discuss whether this should be an article; DRV is here to discuss whether speedy deletion was appropriate, and given the prior AfD, I'm not so sure that it was. Luna Santin 06:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Having this page is more trouble than it's worth. Can someone please point me to the policy that says that once there's consensus to keep an article, we don't have to worry about legal concerns? 06:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hm, now that I've looked into it a bit more, things are less clear to me. Was this deleted under WP:OFFICE or G11? Luna Santin 06:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

no.Geni 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Page deleted at the request of Office. Please do not recreate." sounds a bit like OFFICE, but the usual machinations of OFFICE weren't used, so it seems ambiguous. If not OFFICE, then G11 seems the most likely to be relevant. That's why I'm asking, it makes a significant difference in my view of the situation. If OFFICE was used, I'm inclined to stick out of it; if it wasn't deleted in that capacity, or something similar, I really don't think a speedy is appropriate. That's more what I'm getting at, I guess. Luna Santin 08:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

the deletion reasons given are "non encyclopedic cruft to promote a sex toy" and "once again".Geni 09:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Prove it.Ok, so all you "its notable" folks, its time to prove it. If its notable and encyclopedic, I'd like to see the proof. Everyone keeps saying it is, but I haven't seen independent sources (this excludes the company's own website and psuedo-forum) listed here (nor were there *any* in the article). I've looked, but I can find anything independent that tells me why this is more notable than any other sex toy. In fact, on most interenet sites selling sex toys, if the fleshlight is offered, its there with its competitors just like all the rest. Please then, list those sources that tell me why its notable here so people can see them. Otherwise, your claims are bunk. pschemp | talk 14:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought they had been mentioned... and come up in the first page of Google searches. I'm really not interested in venturing much further in my quest for knowledge on this topic though... presumably there's more. --W.marsh 14:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

At best that that shows that it needs a mention in Sex Toy, but doesn't justify a whole article. pschemp | talk 15:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt we could find 5 articles (the number of widely read publications mentioned so far) about many or even most small towns, schools, highways and so on that we deem automatically notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages. All this extra scrutiny because this is a sex toy is well, I understand it, but it is what it is. We've decided that Misplaced Pages is not censored, let's either stop acting like it is or change the rule. --W.marsh 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn I don't often agree with badlydrawnjeff but he's right in this case. There wasn't anything like a consensus in the last AfD, which was closed abruptly. I see a number of news sources covering it, including the Village Voice, Wired, Toronto Eye Weekly, and SF Weekly. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted for the various reasons outlined above. Eusebeus 15:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn notability appears to be getting asserted. If this is an WP:OFFICE action, then Abstain but link a Jimbo/Danny statement in to the deletion/protection history. For those that inclided to improperly use DRV as AFD I'd say Redirect this to the generic article. — xaosflux 18:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to artificial vagina (and protect) is the best way to salt the earth. If this becomes a recognised generic term (as with "rampant rabbit" or "hoover") then the situation can be reviewed. -- RHaworth 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. If this is an Office action, then have the guts to say so. If it is not then it should not have been deleted, given the previous Afd consensus to keep it. Cynical 19:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn on the grounds that it does not seem to have been through a proper AfD. Dalf | Talk 03:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Fleshlight company and its agents demand absolute editorial control over the article lest its advertising value be diminished. The only way we can absolutely guarantee that the advertising value of their article is not subverted by the merciless editing of text is to delete the article. I see no problem here with giving them what they want in the only way we can. Guy 09:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've heard Danny's explanation that you're repeating here, and it's silly, borderline on outright bunk. What other articles do we give this sort of reaction to? I can think of a lot of people who'd love to have this done to their article, too, but we'd never do that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I fear that MediaWiki's markup parser sanitiser munger may have begun stripping out <sarcasm> tags. --88.109.144.82 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. This isn't AFD. WP:OFFICE is WP:OFFICE. From Danny's email on WikiEN-l, I agree that this page was simply a spam target and battleground. Deleting this as quickly as possible and not redirecting it to Vagina was the best course of action for such a (...here comes the AFD opinion...) non-notable product. --Zsinj 12:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • But this wasn't WP:OFFICE, and this was out of process. DRV is exactly what this is for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn I find it odd that an article for a single product is deleted without considering other such articles. Category:Sex toys lists at least three articles for other products. How about assessing notability using data of users' interests, instead of what the media chooses to cover? Using Google Trends to compare amounts of searches done on Google, this international product ranks higher than some of the other Misplaced Pages covered products, and even higher than the mentioned Village Voice! Where is the problem in handling edit wars and vandalism with this article the way they are usually handled with all the other articles? --Para 16:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: We seem to be second-guessing Danny here, extending more consideration to the company than to our own people. Here is what he said today on WikiEN-l:

Okay, this has gone far enough.

It is remarkable that people have built all these theories on hypotheses as to what happened with Fleshlight, without actually knowing the facts. It is just ludicrous to think that I succumbed to pressure from a company. To begin with Mark Gallagher's ad hominem suggestions on that point, I have dealt with Walmart, Coca Cola, and GM (among other firms) on the phone. I have spoken with Congressmen and Senators. I have spoken to their lawyers. I have spoken to their PR people. I have spoken to their VPs in charge of advertising. I did not give in to their cajoling, their threats, or their attempts at bribes. To suggest that I did so with Fleshlight is simply ridiculous and does not merit any serious attention. Instead I invite you to spend a day in the office, or if that is too difficult, ask people who have been to the office and have heard me on the phone how I deal with those kinds of people.

The fact is, we are dealing with a problem here. We have companies galore trying to spam us. OTRS is just a small indicator of this. We have adverting executives calling to see if what they can do to move their company to a higher position on a list, or how much it costs to get them on the front page. We are prime advertising. We will soon be the tenth largest website in the world, and "anyone can edit." It is not only top notch internet advertising, but it is free too. You see, these people dont see the difference between us and MySpace. They know that we will push up their Google rankings. They know that everyone will look them up on Google and find the Misplaced Pages article. And I repeat, it is free. For the Americans among you, it is like getting a free commercial slot in the last two minutes of the Superbowl. And I repeat, it is free. And for this prime slot, they want to make sure they look as good as they can.

This is not hypothesis. We are dealing with it every day, from people who threaten to sue us for violating their First Amendment rights to post about their company to clueless people who think that if we put up a banner to their online poker site we will all make money. We get it from the big Fortune 500 companies and we get it from the local car rental shop, from the sister of a guy who is opening up a new real estate business in Durham North Carolina (I am not kidding) to reps of Coca Cola ("The article is biased"). We get it from Washington thinktanks led by former cabinet members to Flickr-like rip off sites (they offered us $35 for every photographer we send to them).

As a site where advertising is anathema, we have to make a choice. Do we allow this? Personally, I am opposed to paid advertising on Misplaced Pages, but I am even more opposed to free advertising which we cannot monetize.

As editors, we end up having to make choices. With our goals in sight, How do we continue being an encyclopedia, and not some advertising forum or MySpace? What is the difference between an article about Budweiser (which I believe we should have even though their beer is foul) and articles on every micro-brewery in the state of Wisconsin?

Fleshlight is just an example of one such minor product. Yes, it was mentioned in the Village Voice. Big deal. My mother was mentioned in the Toronto Star in the 1970s, but that does not mean we need an article about her. Six other products were mentioned in the article (which was a survey of male sex toys, not a piece about Fleshlight per se), but that doesn't mean we have articles about them (see my earlier email for a survey of the article). One hit on Google News does not make something noteworthy, especially if it is not even an article about the topic per se, but rather just a few lines in an overview article (if you actually read the article online before citing it, you will see what I mean).

For all those expressing indignation, I invite you to think about what should be included in an encyclopedia, even one the size of Misplaced Pages. Once you define that, consider what the definition excludes.

Which brings us back to Fleshlight. It was the subject of a subtle edit war between the company that manufactures it, and a similar company which wanted to have an external link on the Fleshlight page. Fleshlight wrote "We are happy to let others view our product, but would like to limit editing privileges. This product is seen as taboo to many, so they would just assume destroy our displayed page. Is there anyway I could be placed as moderator for that single page, just Fleshlight, so changes can still be made when necessary and not having the company product slandered." By slandered they mean, showing a rival company. Their rival wrote, "I am quite upset. While I understand that everyone can edit pages as they want, I find it quite outrageous that I add and edit information about the Fleshlight at _http://en.wikipedia.org/Fleshlight_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/Fleshlight) I am an affiliate of Fleshlight and got the word about rules at WIKI that you can't link via affiliate links, but provide USEFUL links using your own domains regarding an WIKI entry." He wanted to add "my updates regarding facts, like unavailable colors of the Fleshlight." That was the slander. Add to this mix a guy who runs a Fleshlight fansite, which is essentially a porn site, who wanted sole control over links as well (i.e., link to his site only).

Considering all this, I asked if Fleshlight really needs an article of its own. I consulted with people too. The overwhelming response was that this is spam and should be nuked. At first I thought it could redirect, but then I asked myself the following question--do we really want redirects from every possible product out there to generic articles? Ask yourself the same question. Better yet, go into a dollar store, look at the display of products and ask if we want redirects for all the rip-off brands in Misplaced Pages.

And I nuked.

Once again, I hope that this whole incident helps to clarify what the criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages are. At least let it launch that discussion. But to do that, we have to avoid all the rhetoric and be willing to make real decisions based on the underlying principles behind what Misplaced Pages is all about.

Danny

That's good enough reasoning for me. Guy 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Craig Edward MacLean

Subject: Article should not be deleted.

Last night while I was away someone was kind enough to value my skills in the acting buisiness (which is stated by Misplaced Pages as a good reason for an article to be writen) and write a short biography of my achievements. I was sad today as the article writer came to me and asked me if I liked what he had done. Unfortunately when he tried to show me the article, it said it had been deleted for vanity, which I find a complete misjudgement as I myself never wrote the article. If wikipedia still feels strongly about deleting this article (which, may I remind you is hypocrisy as Misplaced Pages stated that actors are valued and allowed to be the subject of an article) then I would be willing to slighty edit the article on behalf of my assosiate. Thank You. Craig Edward MacLean Hoping wikipedia does not approve of the suggested hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.35.254 (talk • contribs)

• FYI, 19:00, 6 October 2006 Aecis (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Craig Edward MacLean" (A7, Vanity) --W.marsh 21:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• First of all I find the accusation of hypocrisy ridiculous. Misplaced Pages has clear notability standards for all people, including actors. They are only allowed to be the subject of an article iff they meet the notability guidelines. This Craig Edward MacLean didn't. I've just reread the article, and there is absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. The movie mentioned in the article ("The Legend of the Luscious Limited Edition Lilac Ice-Cream") doesn't get a single google hit, under any permutation. Everything else is simply just another personal profile that might fit on a user page, but not in the encyclopedia proper. Aecis 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clearly an A7 deletion. 1ne 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion but if you create an account we could userfy. ~ trialsanderrors 01:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Just a vanity article. I've been in more movies than that myself. Very polite undeletion request though. DJ Clayworth 01:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and do not userfy. User pages are not free webhosting. --Sam Blanning 01:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Was it that bad? ~ trialsanderrors 01:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it wasn't a userpage, and I wouldn't have expected it to be as it was written as a biography. --Sam Blanning 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, of course. A 14-year-old who's been in one movie, allegedly (something called The Legend of the Luscious Limited Edition Lilac Ice-Cream which has no entries in Google), and gets medals for Bible reading, does not rate a Misplaced Pages article. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, obviously, but I respectfully disagree with Sam Blanning, I have userfied the content per WP:BITE, we can get user:Craigmaclean888 to tone it down in user space. Guy 09:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seventh Party System

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Seventh Party System This is not a criticism of the closer; although he would have been within his rights to observe that the nominating argument is a very detailed criticism, much better than the rants to keep. But I have even more information which would justify deletion, so I request that the decision be overturned to delete.

For some background on this, see Sixth Party System below. When V. O. Key published this periodization of American history in 1955, he divided it into five "Party Systems", with the latest beginning with the New Deal. There has been some publication on the idea since, some two dozen articles on the Fifth Party System (scholar.google). Some of these have been explanations of then current events as the end of the Fifth Party System, at dates ranging from 1960 to the present; some of them have been comments on the Fifth Party System still existing after so long. (The other four Systems all lasted about thirty years.) None of these appear to support the idea that he Sixth Party System has already come into existence, and has been replaced by a Seventh. Even if one did, it would be a fringe variation on a relatively minor idea. There are hundreds of articles on political realignment in the United States (scholar.google). Septentrionalis 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete Fails WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ~ trialsanderrors 19:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, I was about to do this myself but Septentrionalis did an earlier and likely better job. This is not quite original research, but it is unquestionably undue weight. Some of the (very few) cites which allude to this concept are authored by people whose names are awfully close to the user names of the editors concerned, so perhaps a slight lack of objectivity has crept in. Guy 20:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • John Aldrich is a respectable scholar, but his postion isn't widely shared (his 1999 APQ paper gets 5 cites). In addition since his proposal of the seventh party system matches the period of the Republican revolution this is a redundant entry. A redirect might do, just in case someone uses this as a search term. ~ trialsanderrors 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I tried putting in a redirect (to Fifth Party System) and had it immediately taken out. Septentrionalis 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, per nominator, and the two arguments for keeping which effectively say "no it doesn't meet WP:V, but it might, honest". Verifiability first, then article. --Sam Blanning 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per nom. 1ne 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Agreed. Eusebeus 15:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Daddy V

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daddy V Notability could be established based on media coverage, video appearances and on his clothing line.

• His birth name has been finally cleared. Archie Vick. See Duces 'N Trayz: The Old Fashioned Way and allmusic
• Verifiably participated in Spike TV Video Game Awards 2005, V-GQ Magazine Party 2005, The Source Awards in Miami 2005, The ROC The MIC Tour (G-Unit, Snoop Dogg, Sean Paul) 2004, The Vibe Awards 2005 link (requires login).
  • Here's a precedent case for keeping an article based on media coverage : Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sinbi Taewoong
• Video appearances in "Cali Iz Active" by Tha Dogg Pound and "Compton" by Guerilla Black
• Clothing line called GFL clothing distributed mainly in Japan , . They can be seen in various TV spots such as the LA gang members in the Welcome to Atlanta video (YouTube) and Snoop wears it in MTV Rap Fueds - Death Row vs Snoop Dogg (Documentary).
• Also has mixtapes and his own albums. Cisco Records Japan. TVT Records forum HMV Japan
• Executive Producer of Big Snoop Dogg's Puff Puff Pass Tour DVD. ( DVD cover bottom)

Considering all this I would like to ask for an undeletion. Lajbi 13:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. From the AfD discussion it seems that what can be verified does not make him notable, and what might make him notable cannot be verified. Thryduulf 12:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Space trade

Deletion out of process. Sysop TheProject speedy deleted the article by his own will saying it was "crystall ball". The article cited reputable researcher Robert Zubrin and his work "The economic viability of Mars colonization". It was a good stub with a number of headers, including space trade in science fiction etc. All statiments in the article were well cited. I ask here to speedy review the action and if you insist, put it in vfd. Also if nobody other interested, I will expand the article myself, but it will take time.--Nixer 04:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. "Space trade is interplanetary or interstellar trade. It is speculated that when different locations within the Solar System become inhabited by humans, they would need transport valuable resources between different planets, moons and asteroids..." The total number of planets, moons and asteroids inhabited y humans currently stands at one, with no change likely in the foreseeable future. Guy 09:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Space trade is the major topic in science fiction. We have articles on space colonization and nobody says it is crystall-balling. The article should be restored only because crystall balling is not a criteria for speedy deletion.--Nixer 11:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As a long-time sci-fi fan I am fully aware that trade is one of the things which goes on in sci-fi books. So is sex. Do we have an article on space sex? Space communications? Space maintenance? No. And if those redlinks go blue I will nuke them. There are tens of thousands of real subjects for which we don't have articles. Please pick one of those. Guy 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have them. Look here: Sex in space, Interstellar communication and Space colonization--Nixer 16:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that these are referenced, documenting the extant phenomenon of literature rather than the hypothetical construct itself. And the last is not space maintenance; maintenance issues are a very significant theme in SF. Guy 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep but tag for rewrite/expansion While space trade is indeed a significant topic in science fiction, this article should be rewritten to strongly emphasize and prioritize the real-world envisioning of space trade by space agencies such as NASA - both in terms of hypothetical future commercial space ports (e.g. "Spaceport concepts... build on a rich history of development in transportation, trade and exploration.... Trends point to a future with improved spaceport throughput, new space destinations and markets, and a renewed purpose to explore and experience the space frontier. All this represents exciting new possibilities for our economic development... With high flight rates, spaceports will become a common commercial point-of-sale between Earth and space.") as well experimental spacecraft designed with trade use as inspiration and the current real-world international trade in space goods and services. Is that copasetic, Houston? Bwithh 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  It was already tagged for expansion and used reliable sources. Robert Zubrin is a Lockheed Martin employee. Thank you for the additional useful links.--Nixer 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Speaking of a reliable sources, can anyone find one to show that "copasetic" (sometimes "copacetic") is part of NASA argot or slang, at least since Apollo 16? It's one of my favourite words, but this (possibly exaggerated?) link is missing from the wikipedia article at the moment Bwithh 16:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC) I think I found a couple of sort of-ok sources Bwithh 17:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• overturn and list on AfD Crystal-ballery is not a speedy criterion; it is the sort of thing on which the judgment of the community should be sought. Zubrin is a fairly respected author; but the article may be unsalvagable for all I know. Let's have a look at it. Septentrionalis 18:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I did. I think he can do a much better job. Guy 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and list on AfD per Septentrionalis. 1ne 00:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion It's crystal ball, plain and simple. We do not need an article dedicated to (in essence) the exposition of one author's conception about the future of interplanetary commerce. Eusebeus 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  The article is restored and now moved to my user namespace to prevent other deletions by over-enthusiastic admins. I will complete it and then move back, although I think not only completed articles should exist in Misplaced Pages and contributions from other users could be valuable.--Nixer 23:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)