Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:50, 30 November 2006

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

30 November 2006

File:Bob rae posed 2006 campaign.JPG

Attempts to replace this with original content have been made, all failing. Because a random Wikinewsie applied to attend a Liberal event early the campaign, and didn't show up, we ended up banned from this weekend's leadership vote. None of the flickr photos of Rae are CC-BY, I've yet to hear back from anyone I contacted, urging relicensing.

Rae will either become the leader of the federal opposition party, and be extremely hard to get a hold of; unless he becomes Prime Minister, there will likely be no free images of him. Or he will lose, and disappear into private retirement. Unless we secretly have Wikipedian who holds membership to elite Canadian country clubs, forget it.

Additionally, this is a politician. It doesn't inflict on sales of anything, because he doesn't sell anything.

Finally, his press relations manager personally encouraged the image's usage. Until Monday, there's no hope in heck I'd be able to converse with them, to ask them to relicense the image, due to the busy last minute campaigning. -- Zanimum 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something here. Are you saying that if he becomes leader of the federal opposition, he'll become a recluse? Why will no one be able to take a photo of him in that situation? If he does disappear into private retirment then the issue of availability of free images can be readdressed, now is premature --pgk 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Emudrumline

Emudrumline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

My page for Eastside Fury Percussion Ensemble was deleted. I removed the requested materials by User:Lucky 6.9 in regards to instructor bio. The remaining content is specifically for providing additional information to a subcategory of the Winter Gurad International page. See Independent World Percussion. Please review deletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emudrumline (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion, or at least do so if you find the right page. The one you have was never created. -Amarkov _edits 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse non-existence. Deletion review can not bring back a page that never existed. Presumably you are looking for some other page. GRBerry 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hilal khashan

Hilal khashan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

This article was deleted after the AfD discussion ended with 5 keeps and 2 deletes. Nearly Headless Nick , who did not reply to a message I left on his talk page, provides no motivation for his decision. I surmise anti-Muslim bias. Stammer 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment including what I would consider a personal attack in a request for review isn't the best of starts ("I surmise anti-Muslim bias"). Either that or a rather lame attempt at playing the "race card". If the person is Muslim or not is irrelevant the question is does he meet the required standards. AFD is not a vote, looking at the argument presented two of the three deletes (the nom is a delete) explicitly mention the standards for inclusion of academics (WP:PROF) and one concurs with the other two. For keeping one assertion that being a professor for that university is notable (which isn't what WP:PROF says), another stating a professor at a University professor with an American degree must be notable (again contrary to WP:PROF) Two asserting that the WP:PROF standards are met (not directly) but without giving any further information to back that up. And one citing some references. On this cursory look, I'm not convinced the delete decision was the right one, but certainly based on the arguments presented within the bounds of admin discretion. --pgk 19:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. I don't know who got the idea that AfD decisions should be based on fulfilling proposals, but it's wrong. Especially when the keep voters state why it fulfils said proposals. -Amarkov _edits 19:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. His notability was more than demonstrated in the AfD, so I'm not sure where this closure comes from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Obviously improperly closed deletion vote/discussion. Undelete Hilal Khashan and do not relist. - Mike Rosoft 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn mainly because the closing admin didn't seem to address the sources given. ColourBurst 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist If WP:PROF isn't the basis for decision because it is merely a proposal, we fall back (as per the nomination) to WP:BIO. I don't see a consensus here. For the two linked sources, they are simply passing mentions of his research, not enough sourcing to support an article. So I don't know what the right answer was. I am not comfortable that discretion was properly used, but neither am I confident that a keep outcome is correct. GRBerry 21:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

DUMBA

Hey, I have to second jasonfb's comment about the "notability" requirement: dumba explicitly had a policy against courting publicity and discussions in published works, although many do exist, such as Village Voice articles, the proceedings of the Gay Shame conference, Mattilda's book "That's Revolting" I think might mention it somewhere, etc. Does that mean that all such entities will be excluded from Misplaced Pages? Any good historian or encyclopedia author should be familiar with the tradition of "history from below" pioneered by distinguished scholars such as Eric Wolf and others. Shouldn't Misplaced Pages live up to its reputation as an agent of the democratization of knowledge with a change in the "notability" requirement? Furthermore, since the space is about to close for good, there is no motive for it to "advertise." Also, the Gay Shame page already links to the (now-deleted) dumba page. Jesse sanford 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This page has been deleted repeated by editors although we have taken great steps to meet all of the notability requiremens of Misplaced Pages. Specifically, the administrators Mike_Rosoft and Jimfbleak both deleted this page against the notability requirements and Misplaced Pages's guidelines (We meet the notability requirements and you all know it. This was a community space that gave birth to many, many punk bands between 1995 and 2006-- those bands all have Misplaced Pages pages, why is the space where they started not allowed to have one?) In fact, we continue to try to get this page up there only to find it GONE in the MIDDLE of editing it or leaving feedback on the Talk page. This is extremely frustrating and we feel we have been shafted in what is a very sincere effort to create a historical archive. We want an explanation and we want the actions editors known under the handles for Mike_Rosoft and Jimfbleak to be braught under larger community review because we feel that there has been an abuse of power here. Jasonfb 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty pissed off at this process and am loosing faith in Misplaced Pages as a tool for social change by the minute. How can we proceed with this process in a way that will restore my faith that a larger community of people do actually care about collaborative historical archival? I thought this was a group effort. Now I am led to believe that there are few bully editors who are power-happy and get off on trampling on the sincere efforts of people trying to create articles here. I don't want to beleive this, but after trying to do it the right way and going through what I believed were proper chanels for doing this I am now realizing what a totalitarion, exclusive, and self-righteous club you guys are running here. Please, prove me wrong and tell me how to proceed with a process for opening a discussion of how important this page is to Misplaced Pages. Jasonfb 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see now that the notability requirment is obsurdly high: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." DUMBA does in fact qualify for this as it HAS Been the subject of multiple, nontrivial published works. Although the final reqirement for "independent of the subject itself" is going to be very hard because of the definition of the word "independent". If independent means never set foot inside the community space, then this criteria is obsurdly high since hundreds of thousand of people have set foot inside of DUMBA. As for the published works, DUMBA is referred to in several political articles and has been written about in newspapers over many, many years period. I *will find* these sources in the library and cite them explicty when I try to do this again so as to clearly prove the notability requirement within the content of the page.

What is most frustrating is that the very thing we are trying to work against here is hegemonic thinking that only subjects that have had books written about them are worthy of real attention. This is a white-man racist, classist, and sexist way of thinking that needs to be challanged here ok Misplaced Pages. Jasonfb 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let me identify the problems in your review one-by-one, in no particular order:
  1. As for opening a discussion of how important this page is to Misplaced Pages, then congratulations, you've come to the right place. That is exactly what you have done in bringing the matter to Deletion Review. However, I get the distinct feeling you won't like what we'll be saying. Don't take it personally.
  2. Your statement about how you clearly meet the requirements (and that we know it) seems rather like those "talented" people on The X Factor. Unfortunately, Simon says no. ;)
  3. You say you have been shafted. Do not take what happens on Misplaced Pages personally. This is usually easier when there is no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the use of the word "we" when referring to anything other than Misplaced Pages itself tends to be the giveaway.
  4. There is a larger community of people that care about collaborative historical archival. They just feel that maybe you haven't "made history" in any way worth writing about yet. Not yet, anyway.
  5. Yes, we have our bully editors. We call them rouge admins, the filthy communist scum that they are. Or maybe just moderately socialist scum. Perhaps they're just mildly left-leaning scum. OK, the policital opinion of the scum is not important. :)
  6. Finally (most seriously), Misplaced Pages is not a tool for social change. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia.
• I hope this answers your questions, and sorry if it upsets you. I must endorse this deletion. Chris cheese whine 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• That was a nice way of putting it, Chris. Mine is going to be somewhat shorter, I have to say. Endorse deletion, no assertion of notability ("at the center of several evoluations of the riotgirl and indy film scenes in New York city" and similar terms are far too vague to be taken seriously without specifics and independent sources), nominator is apparently not aware that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not a "tool for social change" or a place to randomly accuse people of being "white-man racist, classist, and sexist". If the nominator does find sources in the library, then he can recreate the article so it cites those sources and shows notability without needing deletion review anyway. --Sam Blanning 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have retreived the contents of the article to User talk:Jasonfb. See also Talk:DUMBA (mistakenly created at Talk:Dumba). - Mike Rosoft 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, Guys, I'll admit it: I'm so new here I don't know right now if my comments should preceed or anticeed your comments. I have been a Misplaced Pages admirer for a few years and I thought I'd try to give back. Not really knowing what I was doing, I created a page half-assed and it got deleted quickly. I get it. I apologize for singling the administrators out specifically, while I do feel that their actions were QUICK (we barely had a moment to edit or discuss the page), I do understand that they were enforcing Misplaced Pages's notability requirement as they understand it to be.

Now that I've read the notability requirement I see more clearly what a racist, classist, sexist project Misplaced Pages is itself. In fact, I do not mean to make that accusation of specific people's actions in this case (although I wonder why queer, women, and non-dominant groups are FIGHTING for inclusion and representation here on Misplaced Pages, seems to raise some RED FLAGS for me at least...). I'm sorry if it came across that way-- I don't think anyone is specifically racist, classist, or sexist. My careful analysis of Misplaced Pages as a whole is based on the notability requirement, which is essentially at the heart of what is at issue here (And why the pages were deleted.)

OK, so I'm going to take you all at face value here and propose a total shift in topic, for which I'd like real honest answer for each of the editors who responded to me: I know how to install MediaWiki, I even know how to customize it. Why should I not abandon Misplaced Pages -- accepting that it isn't a place that is representation of our diverse world, register my own domain name and install MediaWiki and then tell all my friends that on this new Wiki, oral history, personal stories, underepresented and underprivileges persons will be given protection and a voice? Why shouldn't I do that, oh great Misplaced Pages editors? Tell me, I want to know. Right now I'm feeling that Misplaced Pages doesn't deserve our attention or energy and that there are more creative and powerful ways to use the internet to archive a distrubted editing model to empower under-represented communities to record and represent their own history.

If in fact, this experience makes me do this, then I thank you all, deeply, from the bottom of my heart. This experience with Misplaced Pages as led me to a deep sense of disappointment with Misplaced Pages itself, and I appeciate being reminded that not all see it as an opportunity for social change as many do. I appreciate your enlightened feedback on the topics I've raised here (I apologize in advance for straying off-topic somewhat) because that is truly what is at the heart of this matter. 71.139.202.223 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, those comments from IP address 71.139.202.223 were form me (Jasonfb) -- forgot to log-in Jasonfb 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason you shouldn't create your own wiki. Misplaced Pages is not here to help out under-represented communities. That isn't bad, it's simply not the purpose. If you wish to empower under-represented communities, then by all means, download Mediawiki and create your own website. But don't be surprised if nobody uses it, because you have no requirements for content that would prove they are factual. -Amarkov _edits 19:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's not only that (it's not strictly true anyway - WP:CSB does try to address under-represented content on Misplaced Pages, content that isn't likely to be the interest of the main demographic of editors), but it's that there needs to be third-party neutral content on Misplaced Pages. Otherwise anyone can write anything on your organization including negative comments (because there would be no standards for sourcing), because remember, you don't WP:OWN any of the content on Misplaced Pages, so you can't freeze "your" version of the article. If you can find sources, then that would be great! We'd welcome an article on the topic. But only then. ColourBurst 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn As the inspiration and location for a "major motion picture" it's certainly sufficiently notable. At least redirect to Shortbus. --The Cunctator 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like what WP:CSB has to say in fact and I feel that this topic is perfect for inclusions on their task list. I also feel I will receive a friendlier response there than I have received here. I feel that there is systemic bias and this is a perfect example of it. I know you all feel you were just following the guidelines but put yourselves in check here: Why are non-white, non-male, non-straight, and non-privileged people fighting for inclusion on Misplaced Pages here? If the subject matter in question were white, male, heterosexual, and/or privileged in some other way there would be LOTS OF BOOKS written about it and there would be no question of its notabilty. This example is STRIKING to me and if you don't get it, go do some consciousness raising, study second wave feminism, read Eric Wolf and about his work, GET THE PICTURE GUYS IT IS YOUR KIND OF THINKING THAT IS DIEING OUT. Misplaced Pages will not realize its dream if it is held back by old-world neo-classical ideas about a unified version of truth and accuracy. We are experiencing a phase shift here and you're either at the edge of it or not. Jasonfb 22:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been truly amazing and enlightening for me. Very very interesting how this place works and what kinds of things get attention and what kinds of things people notice and respond to. If you re-direct DUMBA to Shortbus without giving it its own page you will have an army of anarchists decending on your servers with guns and knives. Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration. There's a lot of controversy over this and it's amazing to me how an insitution that was so much a part of so many people's lives for 11 years can be whitewashed out of Misplaced Pages by simply re-directing to the Shortbus page, a movie made in the last 3 years and only teniously connected to DUMBA. Truly amazing. I will be bringing the attention of dozens of activists, social change agents, authors, and community members to this experience of mine (and to the discussion we've been having on this page) in an attempt to expose Misplaced Pages for what it truly is: the appearance of democracy but the practice of authoritarism. The esposal of egalitarion collaboration as an ideal but the reality of bullying and swift decisions over turning other people's good efforts. This will be exposed. This will not be forgotten. This will be exposed to a larger community of activists and we will work to change this injustice as we see it. 66.93.139.242 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice against creating an article which makes some substantiated claim to notability beyond an unsupported assertion of being associated with some non-links and a redlink. I honestly cannot recall any DRV where the argumentation outweighed the size of the article (two sentences, one of which was very short) by such an enormous margin. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

File:CRIIRADmap.gif

Has been deleted on the claims that one Misplaced Pages could draw the same map. First, this would be a breach of copyright, since the map would be copied from the CRIIRAD's map without even stating it. Second, since this map is relevant to the Chernobyl catastrophe and has thus scientifical implications, clearly it carries no weight if drawn by an anonym user (be him a known Wikipedian). Lapaz 15:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Risembool Rangers

Risembool Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (Risembool Rangers)

This article was deleted for being "non-notable." However, being one of the largest fangroups on the internet (with over 2600 members currently, and rapidly growing) in this genre is indeed notable, and we are requesting that the article be please be reviewed for undeletion.

• Procedural note - this was an uncontested WP:PROD, and was deleted by Youngamerican (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on November 3, 2006. Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. When I delete any prod, I always scan the article to see if there is anything that could make the article worth keeping around or having an WP:AfD. In this case, I saw nothing. I am just not convinced that a fan group with 2600 (or 26,000 even) members is notable enough for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. That being said, my feelings would not be hurt if an AfD was held, if for no other reason than to give a new user a feel for process, but I am almost certain that an AfD would result in a deletion, also. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: A fan group with 2,600 members wouldn't be largest of "groups of fans of all things." Consider the various NFL booster clubs out there, the various college sports "alumni associations" that control access to season tickets. No. Instead, this is a web presence for a web fan club of a particular thing and then becomes largest of those. That's too much qualification for notability to be given simply for size. Add to that the problems endemic with verifying web groups, the fluid way that "membership" is determined, and the transience of all fan groups, and you get to something that is far too new, far too specialized, and far too unverifiable to present a claim for notability (which is what the prod would be about). Valid Prod. Geogre 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and send to AfD. Contesting a prod after its deletion still counts as a contested prod, per WP:PROD#Conflicts: "Any deletion via this process which is taken to deletion review is implicitly a contested deletion, and the article may therefore be immediately restored by any admin without discussion." Aecis 16:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• As WP:PROD reads, that is correct. However, that statement seems to have been added by User:RobertG (who, by the way, is a user that I hold in high regard) "based on his experiences" (ie his interpretation) and without any discussion that I could find. I tend to disagree with that statement and its inclusion in PROD. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AFD Any contest of a prod is enough to undelete. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Proposed deletions for the section of deletion review where this should have been listed. Since some commentators believe that deletion is the right answer, a listing at AFD should follow. As a webbased organization, the AFD should be about compliance with either WP:WEB or WP:ORG. GRBerry 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No opinion on the A7 deletion. What I said before about the relevant standards remains true, any recreation should demonstrate compliance using sources as described at WP:INDY. GRBerry 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse A7 deletion, I have amended the log (by restoring and redeleting) so that this is an A7 issue, not a PROD issue. If admins are clearing out PRODs and come across one that falls under WP:CSD, I believe they should mention CSD in the deletion log and not PROD, otherwise we get this sort of confusion. Anyway, the article made no assertion of notability - Vic Mignogna is notable but that doesn't mean his offical fanclub is. --Sam Blanning 18:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Charlie the Unicorn

Charlie the Unicorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AFD)

This article has been deleted because for being "non-notable"; according to Mackensen: "Mr. Unicorn has to stand or fall on his own merits, which appear to be lacking." There definitely needs to be some sort of standard established regarding acceptable citations and sources for internet memes such as this one, if the Kitty Cat Dance, Zombo.com and Cheese Weasel is acceptable but Charlie isn't... it's too confusing. Furthermore, I might be counting wrong, but I see more votes for keep than delete on the deletion discussion page. misanthrope 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• The actual debate was here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charlie the Unicorn. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, so the actual numbers aren't that relevant. The article failed reliable sources, and many of the keep voters, including yourself, focused on the existence of other articles as a reason to keep, but that's no reason at all. Inclusion of other articles has never been a valid reason to keep. I stand by my close. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, no third-party reliable sources presented or any other substantial proof of notability - Google searches, view counts etc. are not proof of notability. The presence of other articles does not justify this one. We already have "some sort of standard established regarding acceptable citations and sources for internet memes", you can find it at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, same as with any subject. --Sam Blanning 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the usual range of keeps based on liking it, it isn't harming anyone, WP:INN etc. etc. --pgk 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion No evidence of abuse of discretion by the closing admins. Closing admins are explicitly authorized to pay less or no attention to the views of those that don't understand Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. We do have a guideline for webbased content; it is Misplaced Pages:Notability (web) (shortcut WP:WEB). No keep opiners in the AFD asserted that it had the coverage or awards to meet those criteria. No keep opiners made an argument from a policy that overrides consensus. GRBerry 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just Dial Communications

Just Dial Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been deleted for spamming. The article was only providing information about corporation's history. Please review.

Third-Party Source: Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) Registration: http://support.crtc.gc.ca/tlcmlsts/default.aspx?indx=35&lang=e (page 12)

• Endorse deletion - Please see the corporation guidelines for the notability requirements and also the information on conflicts of interest. Articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone. Shell 19:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mesilla Valley Mall

Mesilla Valley Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AFD)

Deleted as part of a mass nomination. Prior to its deletion I improved the article and added several sources, and had planned to continue adding more. If I was able to locate this much information pertaining to the structure, despite that I live nowhere near it and had never heard of it, it should be easy enough for somebody to do the same for the other items. — CharlotteWebb 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion your edits haven't addressed the failure to establish notability or third party sources, at a glance the main elements of the AFD arguments. The subject of the only third party source was the fact that someone "famous" (Tyrone Nelson) was arrested there, this event doesn't establish any notablility for the mall itself --pgk 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I see no reason why CharlotteWebb should be prevented from expanding an article she was working on. Silensor 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You could say that of any article which ever comes up for deletion, someone merely says I'm working on expanding it and we don't delete? This is actually the point of deletion review, if CharlotteWebb (or anyone else) can shed new light on the subject which address the issues of the AFD then we undelete, so far there hasn't been anything new offered. The sources listed on the current article are 2 sources for the arrest story, the malls own website, various satellite images and streetmap. I'm not sure which of those several sources were added but none address the issues of the AFD, just because you can find streetmaps and satellite images of somewhere doesn't make it magically notable (You can do that for my house, it isn't notable). Indeed if CharlotteWebb improved the article after the AFD commenced, I'd have hated to see it before the improvements, in it's current form there is a four sentence intro, one saying where it is located, one saying when it was built and tow listing store there. There is a section listing stores there (which essentially duplicates some of the intro), there is a larger section than the into describing the arrest for which the mall itself is effectively irrelevant, someone "famous" being arrested there does not make it a notable place, again no more than someone famous being arrested outside my house would make my house a notable place --pgk 09:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, created by Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an employee of the mall's operating company as part of a spamming campaign. Sole claim to fame is being the place where Tyrone Nelson was arrested, that story is already covered in Nelson's article. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Already covered" is a bit of a misnomer, check the timestamps. — CharlotteWebb 09:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I just happened to notice that another mall deleted (speedily, in fact) by the same admin JzG is doing rather well on AFD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paradise Valley Mall). I am close to requesting that each of them (some of which I never got the chance to read) be separately listed rather than mass-nominated based on their association with this user you keep calling a vandal. — CharlotteWebb 09:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You must do what you think fit, but please note that I posted this and the reasons on the admin noticeboard at the time. Dvac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in a spamming campaign, and I cleaned it up. The usual rule with deleted spam articles is that there is no prejudice against re-creation with sources establishing encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse. The mall article Charlotte mentions has nothing in common with this article. No problem with a referenced article that asserts notability being created on this mall. The one that was deleted was both unreferenced (the only reference was for the Tyrone Nelson thing), and failed to assert notability (all it said was "Mesilla Valley Mall is a shopping mall located in Las Cruces, New Mexico", then the inappropriate section about Nelson, then listed the stores. Proto::type 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Valid AfD and valid closing. Yanksox 14:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Valid AFD. No abuse of discretion by closer. No keep arguments based in a policy that overrides AFD consensus. As the page is not protected, if a new article is created that overcomes the concerns of the AFD it can go in without review here. To overcome the AFD concerns, such an article should 1) not be based on the original spam - (trivial, just don't look at the history) and 2) be a good encyclopedia article written based in independent reliable sources in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Amnesia test. GRBerry 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Malls stick around for a long time and are significant institutions in any community. The idea that they shouldn't exist in Misplaced Pages is blatant elitism. Oh, and the article was beautifully and tediously specific and had the kind of dull prose that is prefered these days on the site. Which, I might mention, was evidence of a lot of effort by contributors, who should be encouraged rather than smacked down for their work. --The Cunctator 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a redo of the AfD, so it really doesn't matter if you dislike the ideas there (which, by the way, were that ANY non-notable articles shouldn't exist in Misplaced Pages. And, oh boy, if "A lot of effort" was grounds for keeping... -Amarkov _edits 21:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Imaging Systems

Freedom Imaging Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

This article was removed under the rule CSD A7 by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh On 19 November 2006. The reasons for this were it not being notable. Comments included its lack on mention on websites such as Forbes. What is required to prove notability, and who decides?

See also:

• Endorse deletion, read WP:ORG and WP:WEB please. -Amarkov _edits 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Warrant officer (Star Trek)

Warrant officer (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon (though never clearly established) and numerous times in star trek novels IIRC (not cannon but still human knowledge). It is perhaps best to toss this article to Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia as a section. It should still be undeleted and 'Rediretified'. See also:

--Cat out 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Rediretify Make it so! Actually, whats up with this Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia? Bwithh 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• As the closing admin, it has been requested that I provide the reasons for the deletion. I closed it as a delete because after 5 days at Afd there was an obvious consensus that it was original research. At the risk of !vote counting, there were 14 deletion votes and none in favour of keeping the article. Viridae 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• This article should be restored. It was nominated by someone for deletion who has a history of quick, "in the middle of the night" purges of these Star Trek rank articles without any discussion. Also, the tone of the delete page seems t be from those with a dislike of the subject and a bias from the article. All that aside, Warrant officer has been referenced in at least 3 Pocket Books novels, one Star Trek tech manual, a comic book series, and can be found in the costume producers notes for Star Trek II. UNDELETE -Husnock 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (re-delete). I see no process problems with the deletion discussion and no new evidence to justify overturning the decision. In fact, it's incredibly rare to see a unanimous deletion discussion like this. Regardless of any hypotheses about the nominator's motivations, the community consensus was clear. I do note that this page was unilaterally undeleted within hours of the closure of the deletion discussion. I can find no justification to support such action in the face of such a clear consensus. Redelete and strip the disputed content back out of the target page. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears to have been turned into a redirect page now. -Husnock 05:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, after an apparently unjustified undeletion. Rossami (talk)
• Endorse Deletion clear consensus on AfD. No opinion on whether it should be a redirect or not. Eluchil404 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Something needs doing about that target article too. I think that there's sufficient problems with verifying conjectured aspects of a fictional universe that it counts as fancruft. Chris cheese whine 08:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per nominator'sa powerful argument: The "warrant officer" rank had appeared at least once in the show as cannon (though never clearly established) - i.e. speculative article on a minor aspect of a fictional universe. Otherwise known as fancruft. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse, there wasn't a single 'keep' vote - why is this even being reviewed? This has prompted me to AFD the parent article, which is similarly nothing but conjecture and OR. Proto::type

  Your motivations are now known. Your statement is clearly dismissing the well referenced material in that article. -Husnock 12:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. How shameful that Proto's actions be driven by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. I mean, how very dare they ... Chris cheese whine 13:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - I was the original nominator, the latest in my long, shady and scandalous history of purging uncited, unreferenced fan conjecture inserted by zealous editors who don't comprehend the notion of burden of proof. Husnock, bless his heart being out on a boat somewhere, asserts he has all these citations and references back home to back this stuff up -- in which case, the material should come down now and re-added with citations later, or point someone to these mystery sources so they can do it for him.. But lacking a firm, specific bit of evidence to support these ranks' existence, it's just conjecture. I wrote the one footnote piece for the one supposed WO rank that appears on that page pointing out it is conjecture. Having taken the time to familiarize myself with what distinguishes Misplaced Pages from Memory Alpha, I realize that the fanboy conjecture piece isn't appropriate here. BTW, can anyone calling for this article's restoration make a compelling case for other NINE imaginary/extrapolation ranks that appear on that page? They aren't even "cited" to that fanboy Spike's rank page, I believe. --EEMeltonIV 15:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheese house

Cheese house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Cheese House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (AfD)

This afd a while ago on a marginal vote - I have re-written it and would like it to have another life - but it keeps getting deleted as it has a failed afd in its history Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The article is slightly expanded from the version deleted via AfD, but no version that I can find has cited any reliable sources, which would be required to overturn the AfD. --Sam Blanning 08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, original research from the title on, no sources = no compelling reason to overturn AfD. Every appearance that this is a neologism used by a very small number of people. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ice Age (band)

Ice Age (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)— (AfD)

There was a clear consensus on the AfD to Keep. There are no allegations of sock-puppets or bad faith votes. When queried the deleting admin cited WP:MUSIC but Prolog's argument in the AfD was that they meet criteria number 5 of that guideline and it seems to have been accepted by other participants. Eluchil404 11:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Magna Carta Records is not a major label company in any way – . Moreover, the Ghits are too low for this band. Most of those links are to weblogs and not to any major media site. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are all perfectly good arguments for deletion, but not for ignoring a clear consensus (as oppossed to say a bare majority) in favor of keeping an article. An admin's role in closing an AfD is primarily to carry out the will of the community not to make an independent assesment of notability. Eluchil404 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. See WP:NOT. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. WP:MUSIC #5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Independent label? Check. History of more than a few years? Check. Roster of notable performers? Check. Four of the keep votes are based in the guideline, so this is more than open and shut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• My personal scoring is 1-0 delete. Chris cheese whine 12:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As scary as that little page is, using your chart I get 1.5/.5 to keep. What gives? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How do you get 1.5 for keep? Nomination scores .5, first comment appears to be a "keep" vote with a "delete" argument, .5 (this method scores arguments, not votes, for very good reason, "POV, and also bad" is clearly not a "keep" argument). As for the rest, one says "doesn't meet A7", with a link that doesn't prove much; one says "look, they're on AMG" even though being on AMG is not an indicator; one says "international recognition" with no indication of such; and one "me too" to the other three - all of which score 0, hence it too scores 0 (even though only one "me too" only ever scores 0 anyway). At worst, it's 0.5/0, which at best suggests a relist. That said, the result certainly looks questionable, and the administrator certainly should have explained his reasoning for the delete close when doing it. I'm sat squarely on the fence with this one. Chris cheese whine 12:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Since you asked, .5 for a keep argument based in policy/guideline, right? We've got three of those. I put .5 due to the nom. Whatever, it's all silly, but this clearly shouldn't have been deleted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • We don't have three of those. As I said, the keep comments were either non-issues, or didn't actually back up the arguments. Chris cheese whine 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Two questions. Why is the nom (a bare unevidenced argument "not notable") scored .5 but similar arguments in the comments scored 0? And why does the comment by Prolog which clearly tracks WP:MUSIC#5 though it doesn't actually link the guideline not count as a policy based keep? Eluchil404 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I allow the nominator a bit of latitude, and assume they have at least done some thinking before proposing deletion. I see "non-notable" as the reason for nomination, I assume they have at least checked, and read this as "having done some research, it appears this entity is non-notable". For everyone else, "Delete, non-notable" in the debate scores zero. Zero for the nominator is reserved for clear-cut cases of ignorance, bad faith. Given that neither side manages a full point, and the nomination was particularly weak, with only a half-dozen having participated in the debate my temptation is to say "no consensus" and suggest a relist. Chris cheese whine 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn, undelete. What's wrong with "assuming mistake" or "assuming difference of opinion"? But anyway, two full-length albums on arguably notable label, two reviews in the article (as far as I'm concerned when it comes to music, websites, assuming they're not Blogspots, Tripods, Geocities etc, can be considered reliable unless someone has a good reason otherwise), I don't see any reason for the closing admin's decision. He certainly didn't give one when closing the AfD. --Sam Blanning 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, most of the Google links are to weblogs. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, do not re-list. No valid rationale for deleting the article. Nomination made by what appears to be a deletionist role account/sockpuppet. — CharlotteWebb 12:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted - this article has made no assertion of its notability, as per CSD A7. Not to mention it was a blatant puff piece. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 12:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The assertion of notability was definitely made in the AfD persuant to our guidelines, even if it didn't make it into the article proper at the time (although, given the existence of the two albums on the label, the information on the albums at the page should have been enough). It was not speedied, and this would have been a valid challenge to that speedy if that were case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Relist, try to establish a more firm consensus one way or the other. Examining whether Magna Carta Records meets the notability guidelines might be a good idea, since most of the keep arguments on this article's AfD hinged on the fact that the band was signed to that label. --Slowking Man 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Magna Carta Records has JUST had new information added (not present at the time of the close) that suggests it is indeed a label of some note. (Kansas (band) is a major group, any label that does their albums is thus a major label) In reviewing the band article as it was at the time of the close, and the label article as it was at the time of the close, and the arguments presented in the AfD, I think NhNick acted reasonably. We judge consensus, yes, but it's not nose counting, it's weighing the arguments. The keep arguments were weak and not very well founded. When one goes against the numerics, it often is good to present as detailed a rationale as one can. I think Nick could have given a much better rationale for his decision (something I've been dinged for in the past as well) but he wasn't wrong in the decision itself. The article authors (and the MCR article authors) did a disservice by not including the info that would establish notability.. . we cannot expect closing admins to chase references down 3 layers to see if maybe some OTHER article is notable but not properly set up. SO... I think it was a good AfD but nevertheless in light of the new information Overturn no relist ++Lar: t/c 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn without prejudice to closer: indeed the article on Magna Carta Records was sadly lacking when it came to establishing that it is indeed a well-recognised label. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per Phil Boswell; notability of Magna Carta Records has been established and expanded. FTR I voted Keep in the original AfD for this band. Chubbles 22:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)