View source for Testwiki:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 16

<noinclude>{{Deletion review log header}}</noinclude>
===[[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 16|16 January 2007]]===
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)]] – Article recreated with references – 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song)|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

Article was speedy deleted under [[WP:CSD#A7|CSD A7]]. The criteria used to justify deletion was inappropriate for the article in question - also the article documented the forthcoming release of what is in my opinion a notable single (first in three years) by a notable artist. I asked the deleting admin for his reasoning behind the deletion but have received no reply as of yet. [[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] 22:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', [http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:tHsK9M0zjgIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriend_(Avril_Lavigne_song)+Girlfriend+Avril+Lavigne+Wikipedia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 google cache] shows no assertion of notability. Feel free to recreate with such an assertion, but just being a single is not one. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Ummm... you do realize that's not true, right? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''', pointless and inexplicable use of Articles-7. Redirect to [[The Best Damn Thing]] if necessary, but leave the history behind it. Do not bother listing on AfD, Lasagne is obviously notable, and an AfD would almost certainly end in keep (with some editorial qualifcation such as 'in order to merge' or 'as a redirect', but that isn't relevant here), no consensus at most. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' - lasgane? {{mono|1=:D}} <strong>[[User:Martinp23|Mart]][[User_talk:Martinp23|<span style="color:red;">inp23</span>]]</strong> 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::*[[Lasagne]]. Undoubtedly notable. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Also extremely delicious, containing all four of the essential food groups (cheese, meat, pasta, more cheese). --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 23:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*I assume you're talking about the Canadian singer? I can see cheese and more cheese, but where's the meat? ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*The recipe for pop-punk stardom appears to require no more than seven stone of mutton dressed as lamb. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' Myspace is not a [[:WP:RS|reliable source]] - can be recreated when a press release from her record company is made available/the single is itself released. [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Ummm... I would think Avril Lavigne's MySpace is a reliable source for information about Avril Lavigne, actually... [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - single by notable artist. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' as per Sam Blanning -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''' <small>धर्म</small>]] 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''.  Anything realistically possible regarding a major recording artist should not have an A7 speedy done to it, period.  --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*I'm going to [[WP:SNOW|snowball]] this. Seems like her Myspace announcement triggered 88 news items, as a Google news seach for [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-04%2CDELA%3Aen&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=%22avril+lavigne%22+girlfriend lasagne+girlfriend] reveals. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[G.ho.st]] – Deletion endorsed – 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|G.ho.st}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/G.ho.st|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.ho.st|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

new text as follows [[User:TareqM|TareqM]] 19:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
<div style="background:#EEFFFF; border:1px solid; padding:1em">:'''''G.ho.st''''', prounounced ''ghost'', is an online operating system that provides users with a Virtual Computer space. Ghost is an acronym for Global Hosted Operating SysTem which captures the key idea that the operating system is hosted in a data center and available globaly through any browser, in contrast with traditional operating systems which are installed locally on a specific computer.

:The main benefit is complete portability of the operating system - a user can access their desktop, applications and date from any computer with a browser and Internet connection.  Another benefit is collaboration - given that everything is online there are increased opportunities for synchronous communication, streaming information, sharing data, applications or even entire desktops.

:'''Technology'''
:G.ho.st uses Java and the [[Spring Framework]] on the server side and [[OpenLaszlo]] compiled into Flash (and in the future DHTML) on the browser (client side).

:'''External links'''
:*[http://G.ho.st Official login page]
:*[http://G.ho.st/home Official home page]</div>

*'''Keep salted''', still fails A7. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', version above does not assert notability ([[WP:CSD|CSD Articles-7]]) and is written like an advert (General-11). --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' No assertion of notability as per [[:WP:WEB]] or [[:WP:SOFTWARE]]; no [[:WP:RS|reliable sources]] provided either. [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion and salting''', no assertion that [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources]] have covered this. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 01:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. I notice that the new version posted above nearly perfectly matches the content that was deleted before. Therefore, the previous decision is obviously valid. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - maybe with a redirect to [[thin client]]. ---[[User:J.smith|J.S]]  <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*How is the page G.ho.st different in terms of notability and reliability of source from the page YouOS?? [[User:TareqM|TareqM]] 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[GamerWiki]] – Endorse Deletion. No consensus to overturn deletion. – 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |     
:{{la|GamerWiki}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/GamerWiki|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerWiki|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

Now a substantial size (significantly larger than [[Encyclopedia Gamia]]) with mentions in The Guardian (UK) and [http://www.digitalforum.accenture.com/DigitalForum/Global/CurrentEdition/TheLinkList/0612_gambling_guides_revealed.htm the Accenture Digital Forum] in addition to GameCentral on UK teletext and within Retro Gamer (UK magazine). [[User:Xevious|Tim]] 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' for now, as a "mention" in The Guardian isn't the sort of susbtantial coverage that passes WP:WEB (and consequently presents verifiable information on which to base an article).  We're looking for primary-subject articles here, folks, not mentions. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - a passing mention in the Technology section of ''The Grauniad'' of a Wiki containing 750 articles is not major press coverage in a Journal of Record; the article also has no [[:WP:RS|reliable sources]] to demonstrate notability. [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* GamerWiki does not have "750 articles", as you would see if you were to [http://www.gamerwiki.com visit it].  I also should clarify what I mean by a "mention" - it was part of a review of videogaming information sites, and as well as the URL had a small writeup on the purpose of the site.  You have also ignored the other sources I stated above, being two videogaming magazines in the UK.  If deletion stands, then I propose that the vast majority of the [[List of Wikis]] are also deleted. [[User:Xevious|Tim]] 08:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* GamerWiki was [http://www.digitalforum.accenture.com/DigitalForum/Global/CurrentEdition/TheLinkList/0612_gambling_guides_revealed.htm recently mentioned] (Dec 2006) in an [[Accenture]] "Digital Forum" newsletter as a notable videogame information source. -- [[User:Tyagi|Tyagi]] 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  Nothing rising above the level of trivial passing mentions, as yet. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* GamerWiki has had a consistent presence in the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis List of Largest Wikis] since the second half of 2006. Notable fact: It is the largest, dedicated, videogame wiki. At the time of writing, it is the 108th largest wiki. -- [[User:Tyagi|Tyagi]] 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
**Um... why is being the 108th largest wiki notable? I would estimate that the highest reasonable estimate for number of wikis is a couple hundred thousand. And then you have to realize that 99% of those wikis will be tiny, bad, or otherwise unknown. -[[User:Amarkov|Amark]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
** Around 50% of the rest of the top 100 wiki are [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] projects. As a dedicated videogame wiki, unrelated to the Wikimedia Foundation, GamerWiki could be notable due to its size. -- [[User:Tyagi|Tyagi]] 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Bud Delp]] – Non-copyvio versions restored – 18:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Bud Delp}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Bud Delp|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bud Delp|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

[[National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame]] [[Horse trainer]] - 
I'm going from memory as it was a few days ago but I believe this article had a copyright violation notice and someone must have deleted it without seeing that I had come along afterward and edited it properly and removed the copyright violation tag. Please undelete this and I will double check it to ensure it meets proper standards. Thanx. [[User:Handicapper|Handicapper]] 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have restored the re-write. As the template says, you have to leave the copyvio notice in place and start the re-write at the temporary subpage or elsewhere, so that the copyright infringement is properly deleted from the page history. —[[User:Centrx|Centrx]]→[[User talk:Centrx|''talk'']]&nbsp;&bull; 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Able and Baker]] – Deletion endorsed, replaced with a redirect to [[Monkeys in space]] – 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:Able and Baker}}|3=Talk|4=talk}} 
:Deletion discussions: Nominations [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Able and Baker|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)|3]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (4th nomination)|4]] Review [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_5|1]] 
: Last nomination: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (5th nomination)|5]]
This is a pre-emptive listing on deletion review, as I anticipate that<small> <math> \exists </math> </small> at least one adminstrator who disagrees.<br/> [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:black;">brenneman</span>]] 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''.  Appears to meet WP:WEB per Phil's reasoning. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
** Aye, that's the crux of this: Is Phil's interpretation "solid" enough to overturn the more general consensus on the issue of syndication?  I have ''personally'' tried on more occasions than I care to count to get the issue made clear, but never with any success.  Part of the reason I choose to close this is my involvment, as I can say with some authority that there is no consensus that syndication is sufficient. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:black;">brenneman</span>]] 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Well, if 10 people say "not notable," and then one comes along and says "actually, yes it is, based on the widely accepted guidelines," it should be pretty apparent which side is in the right.  If syndication isn't sufficient, then consensus needs to be built at [[WP:WEB]] for such a change. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 03:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**** I tried [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28web%29#Keenspot before] and failed.  My personal feeling is that there does exist space for a definition of "notable" that included <u>something like</u> syndication, but at present it's very poorly defined and we end up falling back on "because I say so" style arguments.  These are by definition [[WP:V|unverifiable]] and prone to creep.  If a well-supported consensus can be built that clearly supports the inclusion of syndicates, I'll restore this page in a heartbeat.  Not one of those sloth heart beats, either, the shrew-like "as fast as the laws of physics allow me to push the button" heart beat. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:black;">brenneman</span>]] 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Overturn. Aaron should not have closed this, having been heavily involved with the third AfD. However, even without his involvement, serious problems exist with this AfD. First, no new evidence was presented in this AfD that was not considered by previous AfDs. Second, the opinions of the previous AfD were discounted - very few of the 20+ keep votes from the previous AfD participated this time, and their previous opinions and arguments were thus wholly discounted. Beyond that, this AfD is a prime example of the treatment of AfD as a court of infinite appeals where articles can be put up again and again until enough people aren't looking that the desired result is achieved. Meanwhile, great pains have been taken to make it as difficult as possible to undelete articles, including the declaration that DRV is not the exact sort of court of infinite appeals that AfD demonstrably is. Complicating this is an abuse of the [[WP:RS]] guideline to demand that articles written from primary sources be deleted – something that is not supported by any policy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reliability. Among the arguments made in the AfD are that the webcomic cannot serve as a source for describing characters and events in the webcomic – a claim that is obviously and transparently not supported by either policy or standard practice in fictional topics. Similar arguments with little relationship to Wikipedia's standard and best practices included the claim that the publisher of Able and Baker, [[Dayfree Press]], may be notable, but not everything they publish is (a claim likened to the claim that not every game published by Nintendo is notable, which is flatly untrue). Finally, the AfD was plagued by people with very little understanding of the subject making judgments they were unqualified to make. Despite the claim that AfD is not a vote, these claims were seemingly given equal weight by a clearly biased administrator to the claims of verifiable experts on the subject. Although Wikipedia does not favor experts, that does not and has never meant that their views are put on an equal level with people who neither understand the subject they are making editorial judgments about nor the basic Wikipedia policies surrounding the debate. A final note of grave concern to me - Aaron has used his deletion closure as a declaration that this forms an answer to a long-standing question regarding webcomics and notability - an argument he has long been involved in. It is an egregious abuse of his power to close AfDs to step into an AfD on a topic he has been personally involved in in the past and use the AfD as an occasion to declare his views policy. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 04:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
** I'll wear the "heavily involved in third afd" comment, and accept a trout-slapping if the peanut gallery thinks it warranted.  I choose to close this afd despite that because I have been actively involved in attempting to '''''create''''' a consensus on the guideline, and in fact am the person who last raised syndication on talk:web.  There isn't consensus there, and I know it better than most. - [[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|<span style="color:black;">brenneman</span>]] 05:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Oh, yes, I trout slap you for doing that, but a trout slap isn't a reason to overturn a good closure. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Honestly, I don't think the "court of infinite appeals" rant is all that justified in regards to this case. After AfD #3, over a year passed before we saw #4 and #5, and we have seen that [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]] over such a period of time. (In particular, the much higher demand for reliable third-party sources in recent months) It's not like we've been seeing this pop up at AfD every month or so, like certain other issues. <i><b>[[User:WarpstarRider|Warpstar]]</b>[[User_talk:WarpstarRider|Rider]]</i> 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''. Consensus was pretty clear. The only argument which would actually make sense for overturning seems to be "you aren't qualified to express your opinion", which is absurd. For the rest, you're simply arguing against what people said, which is inappropriate. This isn't an extension of the AfD. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**No - everyone is, of course, welcome to express their opinions on an AfD. And it is the job of the closing admin to disregard opinions that are ill-informed, inconsistent with existing practice, or just plain moronic. This has nothing to do with some notion of free speech, but on the other hand nothing does and nothing should oblige us to count transparently wrong opinions (like that not every game by Nintendo is notable) as equivalent to those of qualified experts. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Part of the idea of Wikipedia is that experts don't get to overrule everyone else by saying they are experts. If you'd like that to happen, go edit [[Citizendium]]. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
****Yes, but that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that experts ought be taken seriously, and their views should not be treated as equivalent to the views of people who show a clear failure to grasp Wikipedia policy or the subject matter. That doesn't mean "expert vote = 10 non-expert votes" or "expert automatically wins all debates." It means a careful and prudent closure of an AfD would give some greater weight to the opinions of an expert and some lesser weight to opinions that do not mesh with existing policy and practice. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 13:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
****Even if you ignore the experts, if we're going to baseit off of consensus, consensus is that WP:WEB is widely accepted as the prevaling guideline for webcomics.  Thus, if most of the delete voters are citing non-notability, usually based around WP:WEB, and someone comes around and notes how completely incorrect that argument is, how much weight should each side be given?  If 10 people say a squirrel isn't fuzzy, but I point out all the hair on a squirrel, do we say that "even though it's obvious the squirrel has hair, it's not fuzzy?" --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*****Um... [[WP:WEB]] is meant to show what is ''likely'' to have notability. [[WP:N]] is higher, and [[WP:N]] requires multiple independent sources. Otherwise, any article is just [[WP:OR|OR]]. Nobody has been able to source the comic to anything but the comic itself. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and relist''' per Phil and Jeff. --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 05:22 [[16 January]] [[2007]] (GMT)
*'''Endorse closure''' and '''Speedy close'''.  This has been through 3 votes in the past week, all with the same result, so clearly consensus exists.  If Phil (or anyone) thinks they can create a verifiable article based on reliable independent sources, he can do so in userspace and we can vote again based on that.  Until that happens, the issue needs to rest.  A new vote every few days wastes everyone's time and does not help us build an encyclopedia. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 05:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', clear consensus to delete. <i><b>[[User:WarpstarRider|Warpstar]]</b>[[User_talk:WarpstarRider|Rider]]</i> 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' - clear consensus.  As with GNAA, it's time to move on with life. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 06:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', while this matter arguably should have been handled by a different person then the one who did, a different decision could not realistically have been made by anyone else. [[WP:NOT]] a bureaucracy, and a potential misstep by the closing admin isn't a reason to overturn a decision obviously in line with the AfD's overwhelming consensus. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 07:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. --Slg[[WP:RS|r]][[WP:AFD|a]][[WP:NFT|n]][[WP:DP|d]][[WP:DS|s]][[WP:NOR|o]][[WP:N|n]] <small>([[User:Slgrandson|page]] - [[User talk:Slgrandson|messages]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slgrandson|contribs]])</small> 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure'''. Even after the presentation of the syndication on Dayfree Press argument, there was ''still'' a consensus that the webcomic did not meet [[WP:WEB]] notability guidelines.  This article has received ''far'' more attention than the average AFD candidate. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', [[WP:WEB]]/[[WP:RS]]; [[User:Bogdangiusca|bogdan]] 09:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
** The closing admin (and DRV nominator) is actually seeking elucidation on the interpretation of [[WP:WEB|notability of web resources]] and [[WP:RS|their reliability]] in this context. Merely quoting the guidelines back at him won't be very enlightening. ;-) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 10:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', put this to rest. If AFD is not a court of infinite appeals, neither is DRV. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><span style="color:#DD0000;">&gt;<span style="color:#FF6600;">R<span style="color:#FF9900;">a<span style="color:#FFCC00;">d<span style="color:#FFEE00;">i</span>a</span>n</span>t</span>&lt;</span></b>]] 10:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*GNAA comparisons belie the fact that this AfD contained some of the worst arguments for keeping I've seen in a long time, including GNAA. I might accept "you don't know what you're talking about" (Phil Sandifer's argument, abridged) if the AfD was on some obscure theory of quantum nuclear physics, but this is a webcomic. That is, a story publicly available on the Internet, told in pictures, a format originally designed for people who hadn't yet mastered reading, before it gained mainstream popularity (or possibly before the education system became so dumbed down people started leaving at 18 unable to read, write and add up, but that's a theory for another time). And this is supposed to be a subject that requires some sort of expert knowledge in order to judge an article's worthiness? Where can I get a PhD in Webcomic Appreciation so I can take part in high-powered discussions over whether an article with no reliable sources can be deleted? Does Jason Gastrich's university do one? Can I get life credit for the number of times I've reread Scary Go Round? Ridiculous. AfD properly closed and no new information presented. '''Endorse deletion'''. I read a total of 17-20 webcomics, incidentally, depending on whether newspaper-syndicated comics on the Internet count, so I'm not snobbish about them. It just makes me more appreciative of the fact that there is nothing to write about most of them except that they exist, plus the requisite fancruft. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Endorse'''.  This is difficult because I respect Phil's expertise in this subject area, but the AfD was pretty much unequivocal in deciding that no reliable independent sources have been provided on which to base an article.  Of course we can use the originators as a source for minor details, but without a decent body of independent critical review how can we have an article without violating core policy?  It is telling that even after five AfDs, a couple of deletions and two deletion reviews, ''not one single independent source'' was cited in the article.  100% of the references were back to the originator's website. Ultimately, if this has not been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of its creators, it fails [[WP:N]], which is mainly an expression of the likelihood of being able to satisfy and verify the core policies of [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]].  No independent sources = no article.  We do this every day, dozens if not hundreds of times.  The fact that we like and respect Phil does not mean we can do an end-run around policy for him; the article can, however, be re-created as soon as suitable references are provided.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per Sam Blanning and JzG. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 14:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' the consensus was clear even after the last edits to the article and ignoring those who opined previously without updating their opinion.    I also ''endorse trout slap'' for the closing admin; we could have had less drama had this been left to an uninvolved admin.  And there has been plenty of AFD backlog this weekend needing closures.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 14:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per JzG. - [[User:f-m-t|Francis Tyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 16:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', Phil Sandifer's claims that he is the final arbiter of what is or is not notable in the world of webcomics is not supported by policy or consensus.  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 16:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', clear consensus for reputable third-party sources over original research and personal point of view.  -- [[User:Dragonfiend|Dragonfiend]] 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

*'''relist'''I do not think there was consensus, & I think it was obvious from the debate that there was no consensus. There were several main topics that need further discussion:
#Whether the publisher alone is sufficient to make a webcomic notable?
#If not, are special standards needed?
#Can sources other than the usual RS be considered as Reliable for topics such as this.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' and do not relist, just '''keep'''. The current state of affairs with webcomics throws out too many comics that are significant. (at 600+ episodes that's significant right there) The guidelines need to be broadened and the requirement for secondary sources outside of the syndicator dumped or softened. Over in the music arena, a band gets transferrable notability if its work is on a major label. Not as much notability as the label itself, but if the label is major enough, every band is notable enough to warrant an article. The same principle should apply here, Dayfree Press is major enough (we have an academic telling us so) to warrant retention of every comic it hosts. Why? Dayfree Press editors are well respected enough in the webcomics world to make notable judgements about what is and isn't notable. IF WP had only room for 10,000 articles, that might be different, but the notabily standards in this area need to be relaxed enough to allow this comic to pass, since WP has room for many more than that, and since it has room for many more articles in other areas (that's not a "they need to go" nor is it a "but they get to stay, no fair" it's an example of where notability standards are at, and rightly so, for other topic areas) ''Nota bene, I think Aaron closed this and then DRV'ed it right away for a good reason, to help drive critical thought here, his DRV's have the virtue of being thorough presentations of the relevant material and (dare I say it) of attracting wider audiences.'' ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**If there were even primary sources, it might be acceptable, but there aren't. There is just the thing itself. Part of the idea of [[WP:NOR]] is that you can't cite what you're saying to the thing you are talking about; you have to cite it to a source. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 20:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***No, that's not what NOR is, and it never has been what NOR is. I quote from NOR: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
****I supposed you are right. Still, the fact remains, you need other sources. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 22:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:600 episodes isn't significant, it's merely long. Achieving notability in the arts generally requires talent and/or luck (usually a combination of the two), which eventually is rewarded by the attention of reliable sources. Making 600 webcomics just requires persistence. You might even go so far as to say that a comic that's been around for 600 episodes and hasn't attracted any attention that we can cite as a source is probably less likely to be notable than one that's been around for less time. You can't exactly say that it's too new and fresh to have gotten the attention it deserves.
*:As for the claim that comics carried by Dayfree Press are automatically notable, I might be willing to consider that, except that [[Dayfree Press]] tells me nothing about what makes it so notable, and from the recent AfDs I only managed to get that its editor is ''"one of the 25 big names in webcomics in 2004"'' (they managed to find 24 others?) by Comixpedia, a special interest webzine not notable enough for an article here [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comixpedia (second nomination)|as of last November]], and that's it. On the evidence available to me currently, [[Dayfree Press]] itself might not survive an AfD. Open to correction. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*::You were sounding reasonable until you made the suggestion that there were fewer than 25 important figures in webcomics. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 23:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*:::Probably, since I was being sardonic. When I said I was "open to correction" I kind of meant wanting to be corrected about the bit about [[Dayfree Press]] not having a claim to notability despite being relied upon as the basis for the notability of this comic, not the bit where I was deliberately being mean. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 11:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' There is a clear consensus to delete, and no reason in policy to do otherwise. The arguments being made here and basically the same being made on the AfD and they were rejected there. I can see no pressing reason to overturn the consensus to delete.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion.''' The closing admin is supposed to determine whether there was a rough consensus, not to decide whether he personally approves of the consensus. No evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or piling on. Participants for the most part gave coherent explanations of their reasons. Most of those explanations give me the impression that the participants had, in fact, reviewed the article and were not voting on ideology. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 00:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - As per above, AFD 4 and AFD 5 easily shows a consensus to delete.  As much as I respect expert opinion on matters of content, I do not respect claims such as "everything published is notable", which seems to be Sandifer's case here.  Lar compares the Dayfree Press to a major record label, this is totally incorrect.  Even an indie label such as Rough Trade gets hundreds more links and news sources for its artists than anything Dayfree can come up with for its entire portfolio. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[Evil|<span title="WP:Esperanza"><span style="color:green;">e</span></span>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 00:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''', we have secondary notability criteria to ensure completeness in areas that may not have sources immediately  available, but should.  They don't override the fundamental need for reliable secondary sources.  We can't build a good article on pure descriptive claims and primary sources; plot summary doesn't make an article on its own.  This article has had years for sources to turn up; until someone can supply some (phil sandlifer's opinion doesn't count) this article should stay deleted. [[User:Night Gyr|Night Gyr]] ([[User talk:Night Gyr|talk]]/[[User:Night Gyr/Over|Oy]]) 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per JzG and Doc.  Also, the interpretation of guidelines is determined by consensus.  Like policies they are ultimately descriptive rather than perscriptive.  [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] 14:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' Policies(Consensus) trump Guidelines(WP:WEB). We don't follow that, the policies lose all meaning and we have chaos. [[User:Just H|Just H]] 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion'''.  I hereby announce I am an expert in Peanuts, because I read it, so am the only authority on whether an article on [[Charlie Brown's shoes]] should be kept.  What?  It's the same logic. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<i>::</i><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">►</span>]]</small> 10:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Che-Lives]] – Deletion endorsed – 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |   
:{{la|Che-Lives}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Che-Lives|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Che-Lives|AfD]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Che-Lives|2004 VFD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

regular editors were unavailable, page notable as per google rank and BBC articles on che referencing the forum as proof of his popularity [[User:Che y Marijuana|&#91;&#91;User:Che y Marijuana&#124;Che y Marijuana]]]] 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', entirely unambiguous; if you had sources, they were not in the article. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', valid AfD, no new information presented. If there are sources either the article must be recreated with them, or they should be [[WP:CITE|cited]] here, and from the nomination they sound like passing mentions to me, which are not sufficient. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 10:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' as per process - article unsourced and no notability asserted as per [[:WP:WEB]]. [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' over 9000 members, listed second in google searches for Che, 3rd in google searches for Che Guevara, has been around over 7 years as a thriving radical leftist community. The radical left may be a niche, but amongst the radical left, che-lives is the largest community. That makes it notable, passing mentions or not. If there's an article on the [[Maoist Internationalist Movement]], a "party" that exists solely on the internet and has an article attacking Che-Lives, there should be an article on Che-Lives.--[[User:Che y Marijuana|&#91;&#91;User:Che y Marijuana&#124;Che y Marijuana]]]] 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' What we are looking for is published, [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] independent of the forum/organization/its owners/its publishers that are ''primarily about'' this forum.  (Mentioning in passing or using as a source themselves is not enough.)  Wikipedia is an an encyclopedia, so it is a tertiary source covering topics of significance, not a publisher of original research.  As such, we can't rely solely on primary sources, we need secondary sources.  They need to be published so that our readers can verify what we say.  Some of them need to be independent so that we can adhere to the [[WP:NPOV|policy requiring a neutral point of view]].  I see from your contribution history that you are a long standing contributor that wasn't active much in the second half of 2006.  Following the Wikimania conference this summer, there has been a major culture shift on the importance of sourcing.  Levels of sourcing previously thought to be good enough to keep and expect the article to get better some day are now insufficient to prevent the deletion of articles.  
*:Arguments based on the presence of another article carry no weight; see [[Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability]] for the long explanation of why.  Similarly, arguments based on the absence of another article carry little weight - unless it can also be shown when and why that article was deleted, we may just never have had that article or the topic may be covered at a different title.
*:As to the timing, the AFD shows evidence that concerns were raised on the article and talk page prior to the AFD; the deleted history shows that it was over a month prior.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 04:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[MKULTRA Pop Culture]] – Cruftmungous fork is justly deleted, debate can continue on the parent article – 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|MKULTRA Pop Culture}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/MKULTRA Pop Culture|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKULTRA Pop Culture|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

improper use of AfD [[User:Wyatt Riot|Wyatt Riot]] 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*This is in regards to an "MKULTRA in Pop Culture" section which was split off from the [[Project MKULTRA]] article and immediately nominated for AfD by its splitter. Since this was done by the "author" of the article, it was deleted as db-author. I don't necessarily disagree with the deletion of the new article, but I believe the information was relevant and should at least be added back into the original [[Project MKULTRA]] article. [[User:Wyatt Riot|Wyatt Riot]] 00:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*It doesn't require a DRV to make an edit to [[Project MKULTRA]] to reintroduce this to the article. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 00:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**I just didn't want to be seen as circumventing any procedures. I'll go ahead and reintroduce. Thank you! :)  [[User:Wyatt Riot|Wyatt Riot]] 01:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**I have added the material back into the article. If other editors believe that [[MKULTRA Pop Culture]] should remain a separate article, I would agree with that as well, and would have no problem removing it from the main ([[Project MKULTRA]]) article. [[User:Wyatt Riot|Wyatt Riot]] 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="width: 100%; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | [[Jon Roland]] – Endorsed by multiple people, patient explanations to the subject-and-author can be continued on his user talk page. – 21:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
:{{la|Jon Roland}} <kbd>(</kbd>[[Special:Undelete/Jon Roland|restore]]<kbd>&#124;</kbd>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Roland|AfD]]<kbd>)</kbd>

The article was resubmitted with different content to satisfy the established requirements for notability. The original article was created by someone else as a stub, apparently based on the subject being a candidate for public office in the upcoming 2006 election. Although one can understand that after the subject has been a candidate and not won his level of notability might cease to qualify him for inclusion, there are many other notability criteria the subject does satisfy, which can be easily verified by a web search. For example, he has been the subject of a chapter of a book written by a prominent journalist, Jonathan Karl, then a reporter for the ''New York Post'', later a correspondent for CNN, and currently a frequent on-air reporter for ABC News.

Furthermore, the subject has a prominence based on his work as editor of the digital editions of most of the more important works of constitutional history, law, and government, including most of the works of the Founders, the works they read and cited, and commentaries by their contemporaries. These online editions are not mere copies of work done by others. They are authoritative scholarly edits (some in progress) that have caused others to cite those versions as authoritative, and in some cases, unique. Most of the other copies online of these works began as copies of his work, often without attribution. That work has led to the site being linked to by many other sites, which has put the site at or near the top of search engines, and led to recognition as a leading constitutional scholar, evidence by being invited to write articles for encyclopedias, speak to conferences, and submit articles to various journals.

It is suggested that on future deletion reviews, the subject be contacted and afforded an opportunity to respond to arguments for deletion. That was easily done for the subject here discussed, and was not done. The reviewers should also take the time to do a search on the name, which would have yielded abundant material to support notability, or to follow the links provided by the contributors, which often provide justification by reference that are not repeated in the body of the article, in an effort to keep the article concise.
[[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

* '''Endorse deletion''' - vanity article. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 20:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' and keep deleted, new article does not show multiple non-trivial sources ''unrelated to the subject'' covering the subject (arguably shows one, but that's not multiple). [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 20:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' - [[:WP:V|vanity]] and [[:WP:COI|conflict of interest]] issues with the author and subject of the article.  Notability required to be asserted with [[:WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User talk:(aeropagitica)|(aeropagitica)]] 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''' per above; even nomination for review sounds like a vanity page. Furthermore, I find the suggestion that living persons are somehow inherently more notable than deceased persons laughable. Mr. Roland had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for his claimed notability, which he failed to do, choosing instead to make circular arguments on AfD and here.--'''[[User:Clawson|chris.]][[User talk:Clawson|lawson]]''' 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I protest the statement that I have had ample opportunity to provide multiple reliable sources for "notability". I don't keep scapbooks of such things. I selected one that came to mind, and was by someone the administrators are likely to have seen on television. I don't have long periods of time to add content in response to such demands, but must find time between other projects. Yet you consider a few hours since I added that content as "ample opportunity"? I can and will add additional sources when I find them, but that could take several days or weeks. Further, nowhere did I suggest that living persons are more notable than dead ones. I never discussed anything like that anywhere. My scholarly work is all about bringing to the public the works of notable persons, most of whom have been dead for centuries. I am loathe to assert my own "notability", preferring to let my work speak for itself, but when someone creates the article as a stub, and many people discover it and ask for content, then they tell me it has been deleted, I feel a need to set the historical record straight. It is not about "Jon Roland" but his work and the work of others in the Constitution Society. Unfortunately, the tendency of too many people to argue from authority rather than considering work on its own merits is difficult to escape. Dismissing the worker disrespects the work, in this environment. I also object to the summary deletion of the article on the Constitution Society, which it appears is somehow related to this action by the administators. The Constitution Society is a real organization with real members and real activities, the evidence of which is online for anyone to examine. More people read its materials than read all the textbooks in all the lawschools, and its influence is real. That has to count for something unless there is an ideological agenda at work here. [[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 01:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:The "ideological agenda" is that articles must be about subjects which are [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:N|notable]], and all content in them should be verified by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If you can bring quite a few sources to bear in several weeks, then recreate the article, with those sources cited, in several weeks, and it will likely do just fine! You may want to note, however, that we do offer some [[WP:COI|cautions]] for those writing articles about oneself or a subject very close to oneself-it's very difficult to remain [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] in such a situation. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:Okay. With some interaction of this kind I may get a sense of the standards you are applying as you understand them, something that does not really come across by merely reading your guidance documents. For example, you now seem to say that "all" content must be verified by those "reliable sources". That goes well beyond your guide documents, which only seem to require validation of notability by a third party, not all content in the article. That is a very severe requirement. I don't know many scholars who could get affidavits that they did all the work of editing a historical writing, much less of all the other things they do of importance. They don't always have witnesses. They just do the work, publish it, and readers review their work and decide for themselves how well it was done. It is not as though there is anyone else who is suspected of doing the work. And what is the validation that the work was done according to scholarly standards? Cites in other works, or by other sites, with favorable comments, of course, but much work of that kind can be available for years before anyone comments on it, other than to make use of it for his own work. There are fashions in history that lead its practitioners to exhibit herd behavior and focus on hot topics to the neglect of those that others might consider more important in the longer term. But being out of fashion does not invalidate the merit of the work. That should always be evaluated on its own merits, not on who does it, or or what others say about it.

:As for verification, what is so difficult about just going online and reading it? It might be more fun to try to find it on a library shelf, but in the age of the Internet online publication is displacing paper publication, which is no longer the sole standard for credibility. Yes, I still write articles for print publications, mainly because I get paid for it, but frankly I almost never read the printed editions. I read the copies online. And I suspect, so do increasing numbers of others.

One more point: If it is your intent to allow deficiencies to be corrected (even if you don't take the time to notify the submitter of such deficiencies to give him a chance to do so), then how is he supposed to correct deficiencies if there is no article he can edit or his submissions are blocked by a protected status? I can understand if the hassles of administering a site like Wikipedia make you somewhat impatient and disposes you to make summary decisions, but there comes a point beyond which impatience becomes abusive. I have been intervening in several cases against judges who, perhaps in a mood of impatience, have been riding roughshod over due process protections and the rules of judicial procedure and conduct. Become too arbitrary and the public is going to start rejecting Wikipedia the way they are beginning to reject the justice system. [[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:Which is why we have review processes, as you are currently using. :) However, a judge is hardly "arbitrary" to say "Hey, in order to work with your claim, I need to see some evidence." It's the same when we request sources-we want our readers to be able to see that what they're reading in our articles is, in fact, true. We also want to see that there's enough source material out there on a subject that we can have a good, comprehensive article on it, from verifiable information. If it'll take you a few weeks to find those sources, come back in a few weeks with them! No one's out to get anyone, but just like anything, we do have some rules, and we try to follow them. One of those involves recreating articles after they've been deleted-it's possible, no decision here is forever, but there's got to be some evidence that it'll be ''better'' then it was when the community decided it should be deleted. That's not arbitrary-indeed, what would be arbitrary is to allow someone to recreate the same article over and over ''against'' the community's expressed wish, with no way of allowing the community to have input on whether the old decision should be reconsidered. Surely, as an attorney, you do realize that such review processes are quite important, and not always instantaneous? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*It's rather arrogant to write in the third person, don't you think?  '''Endorse deletion''' as clearcut vanity -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''' <small>धर्म</small>]] 02:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse deletion''', constant allegations of an ideological agenda whenever a page you create is deleted does not help. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:A judge, however, if he follows established due process, rules of judicial procedure, and precedent, will set a date and time for an evidentiary hearing. He doesn't just render judgment ''sua sponte'' and without due notice. It is now clear that I am going to have to maintain copies of the edit windows for things I submit so I have something to work from in making revisions and resubmitting. But I can imagine most people don't come to this realization until they have been burned in this way. If, as you say, I can resubmit when corrections are made, how am I supposed to make them if the article is blocked? Or if the revised version is summarily deleted again, within seconds, apparently without the revisions having gotten due consideration? And do you ever allow for some reasonable grace period on the creation of new articles, to allow time for them to be composed carefully, and the content you demand be added at a leisurely pace that most of the world operates by when they have other demands on their time? Why not allow the author to finish his edits before deleting the article? If he has the article open for editing (and you have the ability to detect that condition, which a good revision control system has), that should be a clue he is still working on it.

:It is not arrogant to refer to myself in the third person. That is the way I think of myself when writing about myself as the subject of a discussion. It is common practice to do so to maintain the kind of detachment needed to be reasonably objective.

:And if you are going to respond to a suspicion of an ideological agenda by punishing the complainant, that is precisely the kind of abusive behavior that proves the complaint. Judges do that, too, and it doesn't bring confidence in their judicial integrity.[[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 02:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::You're treating this as a legal proceeding. The issue is not if your article got due process, the issue is if it should be undeleted. Since you appear to have no secondary sources, at all, it should not be undeleted. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

One of you has already aknowledged I have one, the book by Jonathan Karl, who devotes a chapter to me, and who, besides being a correspondent for ABC News, has credentials as a historian in his own right. He is notable enough to have an article of his own, although I don't know him well enough to write it. He has interviewed me by phone and on television, but I didn't have much time to ask about him.[[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:It doesn't really matter to me what "one of us" has done; we are not a homogenous entity. Regardless, even if you had such a chapter, I would still endorse deletion, because that's not enough to establish notability, nor to verify article content. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:No, but it does indicate you are making hasty decisions and not even reading either the submissions or the comments carefully. Those of you who have volunteered to be administrators are to be commended for your willingness to do so, but whether you buy into the fact or not, you are actually operating in a judicial role in a private law arena, and as such, the rest of the community has a right to expect proper judicial conduct from you.  I would hate to see the Wikipedia experiment dissolve into contention in real courts over property rights in the articles about living people or organizations, defamation, neglect, or historical inaccuracy. None of us want that. But if you neglect to practice your judgment like good judges, that could happen. If you were editors of a private publication, only the publisher would have to be concerned about that, but when you create a kind of public utility or commons that has a real impact of the lives and fortunes of people, that situation changes. No academic department or law review journal could be as arbitrary as some of you have been today. A little collegiality would go a long way.

:There is also a problem with verifying "all content". Not all important subjects are investigated by large numbers of people. Some, especially in the early stages, are known only to a single investigator. For example, I have done significant research on letters of marque and reprisal. You have a somewhat deficient article on "Letter of Marque" that I contemplate correcting. However, there is almost no publshed scholarly literature on the subject, and I suspect at this point I may be the world's leading expert. Am I barred from adding my findings because there is no one else to verify them? Yet it is the one measure which might have made the incursion into Afghanistan constitutional, which I at least consider important. Yet when I asked a deputy to the U.S. Attorney General, charged with managing the legal issues involved in that engagement, to explain the topic, he admitted he didn't know anything about it. This was a nominee to the the federal bench parked in the AG's office pending Senate hearings, and he not only knew nothing about a critical subject in his area of responsbility, he disdained learning anything about it. That is the way we get the public officials whose decisions affect our lives! But the topic is also not fashionable in academia, so getting an article published in a professional journal is unlikely. Self-publication is the only option. That doesn't mean it lacks validity. It just puts the burden of verifying on the reader. [[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:As to letters of marque-how, exactly, did you do research ''without'' looking at reliable sources? If you did primary research, that's great! [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]] the place to first publish your research, but once it's published in peer-reviewed historical journals, it is absolutely reliable and suitable to cite as a source. Your contention of "property rights" is fallacious-''all'' contributors agree to contribute under the [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|GFDL]] whenever they make a submission, and that's clearly stated on the edit page. This means they ''specifically'' grant to everyone permission to edit their work. As to defamation, we have [[WP:BLP|clear guidelines]] in place about that-and avoiding defamation is the ''exact reason'' we require sources, and are especially strict on requiring sources when a living person is involved! As to "neglect"-a private website is not ''required'' to list information on anyone or anything, and may delete information hosted on its servers entirely at will (unless paying customers are promised other terms, which is not the case here). Surely you're aware of this, as you do claim to be an attorney? As to self-publication, you're welcome to do that. On a privately-hosted website. On Myspace. On any website which will allow you to do so. In a self-published book. However else you can find. But [[WP:NOT|this is not]] such a website, and confirmation in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], when publishing on Wikipedia, is ''not negotiable''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


:To respond to your first point above, I mainly work with primary sources. In many cases they are single copies of old documents that will never be seen by any but a few scholars until I scan, OCR, correct, and publish them on the constitution.org website. My reputation as a legal historian is largely based on that kind of work. Like any historian I will then typically analyze the content of that and other works and draw conclusions. That is what you would call original research that you maintain Wikipedia is not the place to publish, but there is an important difference: Whereas most other analyses discuss primary evidence, they typically do not ''present'' the evidence for immediate examination. I do. The reader can examine the same evidence I did and come to his own conclusions from it. However, I do bring one more thing to the table: I did that kind of analysis for literally thousands of other works, probably more than any scholar will ever be able to read, unless he starts early and doesn't waste much time over decades. That can produce insights that don't come out by reading a few passages lifted out of a text. 

:Consider the subject of Letters of Marque and Reprisal (it is important not to omit reprisal). Then I find a statement that letters of marque and reprisal may only be issued to private parties. Even my colleague, Doug Kmiec, testified to that effect before Congress. The problem is, that's wrong! As it happened, almost all the letters of marque and reprisal were issued to privateers, because in a world of monarchs who may declare war on their own authority, there is no need to issue them to officers of the Royal Navy. But there is nothing in the theory of the letter of marque and reprisal, a kind of warrant, that restricts the issuance of them to private parties, just as there is nothing in the theory of search and arrest warrants that restricts the issuance of them to law enforcement agents. (I once almost had a search warrant issued to me as a private citizen because the local sheriff didn't want to serve it on a prominent citizen.) But you won't find a pithy citation on that point. You get it from gaining a deep insight into law as the Founders understood it, but because they took the fundamentals for granted, never really explained in concise ways that we could cite today. 

:So my problem is, I've found an error, and a serious one, and I am the only expert available to refute it, based on my primary source research. It's not that my research is inaccessible to others. I have tried to make it all available online, but the insights are not expressed in quotable quips. It takes total immersion in the subject. I've done that, and so can anyone else, but I have done it and they are unlikely to. I can cite the authority for my position, but that is a huge body of material that cannot be reduced to a single, short passage, except by my finding about it.

:Why is it a serious error? Because the issuance by Congress of letters of marque and reprisal was the one way Congress had to comply with the Constitution concerning the incursion into Afghanistan. Now, I grant that not many people today care about strict constitutional compliance, until it is violated against them, but it is my general conclusion from the study of history that strict constitutional compliance is one of the most important things in human affairs. That itself is not a position I can support with "reliable" sources, because anyone may cite other "reliable sources" that take the opposite position. Ultimately, it comes down to personal choice. But if someone who made one choice grabs the podium, and no one challenges him, his position can come to be seen, mistakenly, as some kind of irrefutable truth rather than as disputable and disputed.

:On the legal points you make, I am familiar with them, but I also know that what is provided for in GFDL licenses and other accession contracts is for a civilized world that bears little resemblance to what actually happens in courts, where, as the old saying goes, "A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge." There is a reason why Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones, in a talk to the Harvard Federalist Society in 2003, said that the "American legal system is corrupt beyond recognition". If some lawyer smells money you may find your GFDL resembling Madison's "parchment barrier". I fight that corruption every day. It is the reason I don't seek a bar card, because honest lawyers are not allowed to challenge corrupt judges and prosecutors.

It is not just contributors who may have a justiable interest in what is published on the site. Consider the revelation of sensitive information about someone else than the contributor. Information needed to steal his identity, for example. Or revelation of the location of a protected witness, or of a whistleblower for whom it is the government that is the threat. The possibilities for "when did he stop beating his wife" aspersions are endless. In the words of Cardinal Richelieu, "Give me six lines written by the most honourable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."

:Now I'm not saying one has to make business or editorial decisions on the basis of that corruption, but don't be surprised if it rears up and bites you. "Know everything, believe nothing, and be ready for anything." (And hide your assets.) [[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 07:09, 17 January 2007

::What I got out of all that:
::#I shouldn't have to verify everything because it might be new stuff that only I know.
::#I shouldn't have to provide secondary sources because I'm gonna give you the primary sources for analysis.
::Both of those fail [[WP:NOR]]. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Amarkov|blah]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/User:Amarkov|edits]]</sub></small> 14:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:No, I am not arguing for special treatment of myself. In all of the above I have been arguing for equal treatment of everyone. I am not important. If I could have my work attributed to "anonymous" that would be fine with me. I once considered doing that, but it doesn't work. People demand to know who did the work, if only to tie the work together to a single author or editor. It is the work, not the worker, that matters. But I am also saying that you are not applying your own standards consistently or even-handedly, or in a way that gives the submitter a reasonable opportunity to respond to demands from editors. I have spent many hours responding to the demands of print editors for more cites, especially of law review articles, where editors seem to feel that one key cite is not enough, but want everything found in "shepardizing" the case, which can result in more footnotes than anyone who reads the article really wants, and cuts into the word limits for the article as a whole. We usually negotiate a compromise.

:I have been taking a tour of many articles of interest to me, and I have not found a single article of any length in which ''everything'' is verified. Each of them, like the articles in any print encyclopedia, are a mixture of fact and opinion, some of that of professional grade and some of it not, with perhaps some cites that support some or many points, but not all of them. When I turn to the talk sessions involving changes to the articles, I do not find the discussants applying those standards consistently to themselves or one another, or exhibiting a level of subject-matter expertise that makes their comments a "peer review". I am familiar with the peer review standards of professional journals, and the lesser review standards of law review journals (3rd-year law students who have a lot to learn). My print editors don't even aspire to the standards you claim to uphold. They are content to look at the body of work of those they ask to submit articles, spot check their work, find what they examine to be reliable, and form the general opinion that the rest of the author's work is probably also reliable. That is a leap, given that print encyclopedias and journals can't be corrected as online publications can, but they do so in the recognition that corrections can be made in subsequent editions, or in the case of professional journals, that others will submit articles that challenge the findings of earlier ones. Many of my print article commissions are to correct articles written by others that have come under criticism.

:You have also not responded to my questions. How do we resubmit articles to satisfy your demands when the article is blocked, as someone has done for the Constitution Society article? I see many other articles for other organizations in the field that are very similar to the version I last tried to submit. Indeed, mine was modeled on some of the others. None of the organizations I looked at had any third-party verifications of their notability. I do not see the same standards being applied to articles on organizations that you are applying to articles on individuals. Nor do I think that would be appropriate. It can't be numbers of voting members. That would probably exclude the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the only formal organizations for their parties with voting powers, organized as nonincorporated associations. Many important organizations are "private foundations" under IRS definitions, others are "public foundations" with self-appointing boards who have the only voting powers. A more reasonable way to assess notability, for individuals or organizations, would be to put up an article and count the numbers of page visits over some period of time, then give extra weight to some deemed notable by peers in their field. After all, 18th century legal philosophers are not going to get as many hits as rock stars, but those of us in that field can better assess their importance to the development of legal thought.[[User:Jon Roland|Jon Roland]] 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, the solution here is pretty simple. [[:WP:CITE|Cite]] third-party [[:WP:RS|reliable source]]s (scholarly legal journals, major media outlets) that have covered you and your work and no one here will contest their validity or notability. If you can do that, which ought to be a fairly simple task, it will be quite easy to get the articles in question restored. If you ''cannot'' cite such third-party sources, you have no argument, period.--'''[[User:Clawson|chris.]][[User talk:Clawson|lawson]]''' 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
|}