Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Riedel Communications (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article descripes the company Riedel with all the information needed, for example: Company location & history, milestones and business description. It is not meant to be an advert, it should just give the facts. All used information are free to find on their website, therefore there should be no legal problems. The pictures used are linked with the german article of Riedel Communications. If there should be any doubt about the legalization please write Riedel communications an email or is it possible to give an approval from their site?) BeyondTime (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at AfD, as a reasonable contest of a speedy. Ideally, would the deleting admin, User:Cryptic, speedily do this, not because there is an obvious problem with his judgement of G11/G12, but because at AfD a few editors will meaningfully discuss the merits of the article rather than the philosophy of speedy deletion. I think the contest is "reasonable", a low standard, simply because (1) the contesting editor writes non-insulting easily understood sentences, and (2) there is a related de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riedel_Communications page. If the page is snow deleted at AfD, the admin may consider himself endorsed, and the author may better understand the community decision making process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not willing to do that for a copyvio (and particularly not a copyvio of a marketing brochure). Full links, since they got cut off in the deletion log, are [1], [2], and [3]. (I'll admit that salting so early was probably a misjudgement, and any other admin is of course free to reverse.) —Cryptic 14:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a straight copy of a marketing brochure? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Windy Corner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bad close. Community consensus is clearly against keeping this article on a non-notable subject. See also discussion at User talk:Michig#Windy Corner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy would that be? --Michig (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to know more of what Spartaz is thinking. "Policy" is very uncertain with regard to obscure but real things versus WP:NOTPAPER. I read very little coherent discussion of policy, and so disagree that the closer is invited to create a policy interpretation where nothing explicit is documented. On further review, I see worthy content and probably is not best presented in a standalone article, and that AfD is premature before discussion of a merge. The merge discussion should be held at the talk page of the target. If editors don't respect a consensus found there, there are ways to resolve the dispute. I endorse the close that fails to find a consensus to delete, and the flavour of keep is for discussion elsewhere, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what specific action do you see a consensus? --Michig (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge, probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners. The closing admin said: "There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support". OK. That might be true on the face of the AfD. But let's look at the substance of what happened. Who wanted to keep a stand-alone article? Two editors: Rocknrollmancer and Agljones. Who wanted to remove a stand-alone article (ie delete or merge)? Five editors: Andy Mabbett, Brianyoumans, Montanabw, JT and Lukeno94. And frankly, on any objective measure, the arguments of the latter group were stronger. So I see a fairly clear consensus. Sure, the consensus isn't to "delete". But there is a different consensus that Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. We then give effect to that consensus with a "merge", rather than "delete", as that option had reasonable support and will preserve the content that had been improved during the course of the AfD. As for the merge target, Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners seems good although admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within discretion. Deletion would be removing sourced content with no clear consensus to do so, keep isn't supported by the discussion and a merge closure would perhaps have been a supervote though I certainly would have endorsed that too as a somewhat reasonable combination of the various !votes. (How would I have closed that? I'd have passed on closing and !voted to merge.) Hobit (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just go ahead and merge it. Do it well, and probably no one will revert you. That afd certainly isn't any basis; if it had been closed as an outright keep, it would maybe be worth going through the bureaucracy of a formal overturn, but it wasn't. —Cryptic 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can almost certainly guarantee that any attempt at a merge would be reverted fairly quickly by one editor from that AfD; just look at their insistence of its notability, without providing any evidence of that fact. That's not a failure of AGF, that's seeing what's right in front of me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a decent close, as there's no community consensus there to take any particular action. That shouldn't preclude a merge if someone wants to take on the responsibility. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I disagree strongly that it would be a "supervote" to delete, when we have only two keep !voters, and neither of them showed any proper evidence of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor did the delete !voters say much about the sources actually in the article. Your comments were the most on-point, but given that there appear to be non-primary sources in the article, your comments aren't hugely convincing that this doesn't meet the GNG. The delete !voters, on the whole, argued that coverage of a corner isn't what we should be covering. That's largely a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. A strong majority of folks is needed (IMO) for such an argument to be accepted. That didn't exist here. I tend to agree with the notion that we shouldn't have this article (thus my urging for a merge of all of these). Hobit (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly noted the bombard, but I don't have access to the paper sources and no one really commented on them (other than the primary ones). If you'd looked at them and reached that conclusion, that would have been a very different AfD and while I'd still have preferred a merge, deletion would have been within discretion. As it is, there isn't a strong enough GNG argument to delete IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor do I have access to the sources, but a lot of them aren't even being used for the corner itself. Of the seven (!) references next to each other, four are pretty clearly primary and local (Isle of Man Department of Tourism, or their department of Economic Development), two are merely name drops going on the quotes given, and, as a result, I'm highly dubious about the other two; it can be reasonably expected that they are passing mentions as well, otherwise the other five would be redundant and not have been needed. The corner is not mentioned at all in ref 8; in fact, I'm not even sure what that reference is there for. Ref 9 is a primary/routine source. Ref 10 is just a book of place names. Ref 11 appears to have no relevance to the corner. Ref 12 is local, possibly primary, and not relevant to the corner. Ref 13 and 14 also appear to be primary/local (same "The Manx Experience" publisher). Ref 15 could well be independent, but it appears to have no relevance to the corner. Ref 16 and 17 are also apparently irrelevant and local/primary (Manx Nation Heritage). Ref 18 could be good; no way of checking for certain, but I'm dubious given everything else. Ref 19 is just a quote/passing mention, and is a local source anyway. Ref 20 is another passing mention. Ref 21 appears to be primary/local (The Manx Experience again). Ref 22 is definitely local (Isle of Man Newspapers), and is part of routine TT build-up coverage. Ref 23 falls into the same slot that ref 18 does. And this is literally just by analysing the publishers/authors and the context the references are being used in; we can discount all bar three or four of them almost entirely even without looking at them. And thus, it is a reasonable assumption that the other four don't add up to anything either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close was quite reasonable as the discussion was marked by disagreement rather than consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - an extra head or two in the delete camp, but a hard slog given policy trends towards keep, and the delete arguments are absolute garbage. Brianyoumans says "delete", then links to an argument where he suggests reasons one might keep or merge, but not delete. Montanabw pleads a pretty naked that they're not interested, which is not an argument for deletion. I can't even figure out how I'm supposed to construe JTdale's comment into an argument to support deletion; something about google maps that doesn't connect to the article, and then the suggestion that merge might be a better way to organise the content (perhaps, but merge is fundamentally a keep position, so pairing with a !vote for deletion is nonsensical. And Lukeno94 suggests it doesn't "feel" like a notable kind of thing. These are piss-poor arguments. I probably would've endorsed a keep here, going over how piss-poor the delete "arguments" are. But it might be fair to read the discussion as unclear between merge and keep, even though they're basically the same position. WilyD 11:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point Montanabw actually made was "not GNG"; which is in agreement with the deletion rationale, which you also ignore, "No evidence of notability". Likewise, Lukeno94 explicitly states "This isn't remotely a notable corner". User:JTdale's comment, which you disparage, was clearly a response to a 'keep' rationale of "It is also named as a corner on the UK Ordnance Survey map for the Isle of Man (Sheet 95) and also named corner on Google Maps", to which you epithet "absolute garbage" would be better applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misrepresenting the discussion and my comments is unpleasant, uncollegial behaviour. Please stop. Badgering everyone because the facts do not remotely support your position is not going to incline me (or anyone else, I suspect). to support your untenable position. WilyD 17:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys, let's drop it. WilyD, I generally greatly respect your thoughts here but I think you didn't a disservice to at least a couple of the deletion !voters. There were some guideline/policy-based arguments there. I don't think they carried the day, but they were there. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to comment, Andy Mabbett has explained my comment perfectly. I have no time to comment otherwise due to exams but I wanted to confirm my position on that. JTdaleTalk~ 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking a policy isn't an argument if the policy doesn't apply, sorry. Other than that, if PonW and Luke want to strike their comments, I'd do the same to my responses, but I can't let their badgering and misreprentation stand unchalleneged. They might be upset I revealed the flaws in their otherwise untenable position, but if you don't your piss-poor arguments exposed as such, don't bring them to DRV; and if you don't want people to respond, don't misrepresent them and sling unjustifiable insults at them. WilyD 10:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. I've been plotzing over closing this for a couple of days now, but I find I can't pull the trigger, so I'm going to comment instead (which, I suspect, will just make the job that much harder for the next janitor who wanders by). The key thought in the closing statement is that the !votes are split between delete, keep, and merge, so none of them emerge as a consensus opinion. I don't look at it that way. When I'm closing an AfD, the big question in my mind is keep or not keep. There's a lot of different ways to not keep, and I lump them all together when answering the first big question. In this case, I think it's clear that not keep is the consensus. Then, you need to say, OK, if we're not going to keep it, how do we do that? Straight delete? Merge somewhere? Redirect? What the closing admin did here is split the first big question into three piles, and none of them emerged as big enough to carry the day. I'm not saying that's wrong, per se, but it's not the way I do it (and, yes, I feel quite conflicted simultaneously saying the closer wasn't wrong, yet I'm arguing to overturn). And, while I know this isn't AfD Round Two, I can't help looking at the article itself. It's got a long list of references, but none of them strike me as establishing that this meets WP:N. They're all about racing, or race tracks, in general, and just happen to mention this curve in passing. Volume, yes. Quality, no. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see any in the lot which are about the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merge" does not support deletion. So what does a closer do with a rough consensus to "not keep as a standalone article". They should close, whether as Keep or No consensus, and redirect as an ordinary editorial action. AfD should be silent on merge or not merge discussions, or the scope creep will swamp it. DRV too should hold it above these questions. The obvious action required by detractors of this article is to redirect, see if anyone actively objects, and then discuss with those who object. This DRV nomination seems to be attempting to game an untested merge and redirect action. The closer is not at fault. DRV does not solve merge questions. There is a problem, but this is the wrong forum for the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I disagree with this reasoning strongly. It seems to misunderstand how to judge an AfD. Which is surprising because I've found most of your closes to be reasonable. But the long-and-short is that we don't delete sourced content without consensus to do so. And a merge !vote isn't moving toward that consensus. Further, merge is pretty clearly the right outcome here. The sources are above the bar a for literal reading of WP:N. The discussion didn't support deletion. And NC is certainly not outside of the closer's discretion. In no way can an overturn to delete be justified here. I will say if admins are going to start judging merge !votes as delete !votes, I'll just move to keep even when I think merge is the better outcome. At least that can be done later editorially. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit:, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I agree completely, but you make some good points which I will certainly consider the next time I'm closing a close discussion. Please don't change the way you vote because of what I said; be true to yourself and everything else will work out. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "not keep", implemented by way of redirect to A18 road (Isle of Man), allowing a merger from the history if desired. Like RoySmith, I believe that the closer erred by not recognizing that while there was no consensus for an outright deletion, there was consensus not to retain a separate article about the topic. I have no opinion about the notability of the topic, and this is not the forum in which to discuss it.  Sandstein  19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When those who didn't find a non-consensus can't agree among themselves what the consensus was, I think that just backs up my no consensus close. The AfD itself was a wrong-venue merge proposal without a proposal to merge anywhere specific and in three weeks lacked a firm proposal that gained consensus. Something other than keeping as a standalone page would be the right thing to do with the article in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter when closing the discussion and unfortunately the AfD failed to come up with consensus on what that something is. A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Some sources have mentioned this road in passing as there was no clear consensus to delete, however I assume this will eventually be merged. Valoem talk contrib 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus closure" Although the consensus was against retaining this as a separate article, there was no consensus about what particular action to take. Therefore, the AfD was correctly closed as "no consensus". The closing admin wrote above:

    A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to.

    I will start an RfC on the talk page about a merge. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started an RfC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus" is a reasonable reading of that discussion. The notability bar for geographic features is set extremely low, which is probably as it should be. I suspect the eventual fate of the article will be a merge, whether now or sometime up the slightly bendy road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ginger Hall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bad close. Community consensus is clearly against keeping this article on a non-notable subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as closer. The point here is that there wasn't clear consensus for any particular action. While there may have been a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, that doesn't equate to consensus to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per Windy Corner immediately above. Also noting that neither User:MBisanz nor User:Northamerica1000 saw a rough consensus makes it very plausible that the third admin considering closing finds a "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge, probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners. The closing admin said: "There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support". OK. That might be true on the face of the AfD. But let's look at the substance of what happened. Who wanted to keep a stand-alone article? Three editors: Rocknrollmancer, Artw, and Quis separabit. Who wanted to remove a stand-alone article (ie delete or merge)? Seven editors: Andy Mabbett, Brianyoumans, Montanabw, Gerda Arendt, Brianhe, Suriel and Lukeno94. And frankly, on any objective measure, the arguments of the latter group were stronger. So I see a fairly clear consensus. Sure, the consensus isn't to "delete". But there is a different consensus that Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. We then give effect to that consensus with a "merge", rather than "delete", as that option had reasonable support and will preserve the content that had been improved during the course of the AfD. As for the merge target, Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners seems good although admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I should have closed it as merge to an article that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the AfD discussion, even though nobody suggested merging it there? --Michig (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's my suggestion of a merge target now; it seems a better suggestion than the ones suggested in the AfD. My concern with finding a merge target isn't "what should the closing admin have done" but "what should we do now". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what would have been your close outcome? 'Merge somewhere'? We're not here to give opinions on what should happen to the article, we're just looking at the whether closure should stand. I agree looking at the article that merging somewhere would be appropriate but that discussion can take place on the article's talk page. What benefit do we get from overturning the AfD close, and to what? --Michig (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to have closed this I would have said (a) there is a consensus that this article should not exist, and (b) given effect to that consensus by creating a redirect to one of the targets suggested. This redirect would be a temporary measure to facilitate a merge (to wherever) at editorial discretion. I wouldn't have let the failure to seek agreement on the minutiae of a merge target get in the way of the clear consensus that there should not be a stand-alone article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good argument here. I can't fault the closer for a NC close, but I do think this argument would have been a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as above. That said, if the closer of the DRV runs with an IAR merge, that would be fine by me. It's clearly the right outcome (at least until more text and better sources show up) and I'd hope it would keep nearly everyone happy. DRV probably isn't the best place for IAR, but this seems like as good a reason as will ever show up. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Hobit, as I often do. "No consensus" is an accurate summary of the discussion, and "merge" is the conclusion the discussion should have reached but didn't.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no consensus to delete. The appeal's claim to the contrary is not supported by any evidence and just seems to be vexatious repetition of an assertion which has repeatedly failed to persuade. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clear lack of consensus in the discussion, one would have to be totally unfamiliar with the discussion to honestly claim otherwise. Appealling to wider consensus on geographic features is not really possible here. Supervoting consensusless discussions into merges disrespects the community in the short run, and tends to make sorting out a good solution harder in the long run. There's no real upside. WilyD 10:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Evolution Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Significant new information has come to light since its deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. During the 2011 AfD discussion, the basic problem was the lack of a good ref indicating that it was "indeed a recognized 'day'". However I just recently found [4] which demonstrates the term was "Published in TES Newspaper on 6 December, 1996":

"Schools trying to link religious, moral and spiritual education into the wider framework of group assemblies will find here a calendar listing the main religious festivals of the six main faiths, the United Nation's designated days of concern, profile-raising days of the main British charities, anniversaries of major figures whose lives embodied important values and days of special interest to those dealing with children [... November] 24 Evolution Day (Humanist - publication of Origin of Species)"

and also "Dates to remember in 1999" [5] from same that mentions "Evolution Day: anniversary of publication of "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin (1859)". Following this, I posted to the admin who deleted it: User_talk:Postdlf#Evolution_Day as well as inviting those (still active) users who originally voted to delete to comment if seeing that ref would have altered their vote. Admin replied: "My recommendation in such cases is always to post to DRV to get a "clean" and clear result permitting recreation", which I am now doing. A user (Rusty Cashman) who had voted to delete in 2011, having only found "a self published blog" which supported the use of the term back then, now states:

"I think the mention in the source you mention is too brief to make the topic notable. However, a quick Google search reveals a bunch of new references that were not there in 2011, and this one [6], this one [7], and most especially this one [8] would make me consider the topic to be notable enough to justify an article. So if I were to vote today I would vote "keep"."

Thus I would like to Allow recreation of the deleted page. Thank you. -- Limulus (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just recreate. You appear to be acting in good faith and don't need permission to recreate the article. The refs you've supplied look ok although I've not studied them in detail. You should recreate if you feel the article now passes WP:V and GNG - just be sure to include the refs. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no doubt he's acting in good faith either, but that's not the question. We want to minimize future conflict and the threat of a WP:CSD#G4, while respecting the deletion process; we certainly don't want to encourage everyone to disregard AFDs just because they personally "feel" they've overcome the reasons for deletion. Hence my recommendation to come here for a clear consensus based on an evaluation of the new refs, also the surest way to objectively demonstrate that the recreater is acting in good faith to anyone down the line who notices the AFD and says "hey, wait a minute..." postdlf (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The new refs allow G4 to be bypassed, and most probably avoid AFD too. This is an unnecessary DRV in my opinion - refs can be checked in a new AFD if it ever occurs. Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - there are way too many instances of editors believing or feeling like they've overcome deletion arguments and so a previous AFD should be disregarded, sometimes within weeks. The AFD here was 3 years ago, such that all participants would need to conduct WP:BEFORE again and consider the article anew anyway. It's well beyond the period most would consider sufficient for an AFD result to no longer be relevant. That said, the advice wasn't bad and a DRV discussion like this can help "cover your ass" and avoid unnecessary AFDs later. I don't think it's a bad idea to bring it here - a good-faith request to recreate something deleted 3 years ago will always be welcome. Stlwart111 06:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as allow recreation. There doesn't seem to be any need to wait a full week to figure out that the references have evolved to the point where creation of this article would advance the genesis of Wikipedia. The additional citations brought forth below make this proof against WP:G4 predation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Postdlf was wrong to advise this user to come here; that shows caution and wisdom. But like RoySmith, I don't think it's necessary to take a whole week over deciding that the AfD discussion has been superseded by better sources.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Windows Police Pro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) was closed as "delete". Although I disagree with this assessment of the consensus, I will not be challenging the close. I am instead challenging the closing admin's refusal to restore the article's history under a redirect to WinFixer.

The closing admin discovered that Windows Police Pro was noted in the WinFixer article as an alternative name. This is supported by a reliable source. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/article-5-software-titles-you-should-definitely-not-install says, "WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer."

I asked the closing admin to restore the article under the redirect so its contents can be merged to WinFixer. I know the information in Windows Police Pro is useful because I rewrote the article. The closing admin declined to restore the article's history under the redirect. His userfication suggestion is not helpful because as I noted in a similar case at User talk:TParis/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad:

I would not support userfication or moving it to the draft namespace. ... Giving attribution for a selective merge is required by the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. I would rather link to the article rather than a draft, which if not worked on would eventually would violate WP:STALEDRAFT.

My rewrite of the article incorporated nontrivial content from the article's previous editors so attribution is required.

I ask the DRV community to restore the article's history under the redirect.

Cunard (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My discussion with the closing admin (link)

Hi Deor. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) as "delete" on 15 November 2014. I think a close as "no consensus" would have been more accurate. The sources Dream Focus (talk · contribs) and I provided clearly demonstrated that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Two merge arguments:

  1. "There just isn't enough to say about these malware programs individually to justify a separate page. There would be very little left if all the HOWTO stuff was taken out, and virtually nothing beyond the generic description of spoof security software." – this "merge" argument was refuted by my rewrite of the article and my explanation that reliably sourced, encyclopedic information would be lost in a merge.
  2. "It might technically meet the GNG, but I think our readers are better served by having information about all of these malicious programmes in one place, rather than balkanised out all over the shop." – this was refuted by my undue weight argument here that you mentioned in your close.

These two merge comments thought Windows Police Pro should be covered on Wikipedia beyond just a listing in List of rogue security software. The current situation results in no coverage of Windows Police Pro on Wikipedia, which is against their wishes. I interpret their comments as supporting retention of the material over deletion.

The editors supporting deletion mostly did not make policy-based arguments so should not be given much weight. Their weak arguments were addressed by Unscintillating (talk · contribs)'s strong refutation here.

Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Well, I obviously disagree with your reading of the AfD; as I said in the close, "The consensus is to do something with this material other than keeping it as a stand-alone article," and I see no reason to change that interpretation of the discussion. Not everything that may satisfy the GNG needs a separate article, as WP:GNG itself says ("... significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article ..."), and in this case the consensus was, I think, that the topic doesn't merit one.
One thing that I have noticed is that the WinFixer article says (in note 1) that "Windows Police Pro" is another name for WinFixer. I don't know enough about the topic to determine whether that's the case, but if it is, you (or someone else) may want to take up the offer of userfication I made in the close, with an eye to merging some of the material there. Alternatively, someone may want to redirect the title there. If you don't find either of those options attractive, I guess the next stop is DRV. Deor (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good find. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/article-5-software-titles-you-should-definitely-not-install says, "WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer."

Please undelete Windows Police Pro and redirect it to WinFixer. Please also add a followup note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Police Pro (2nd nomination) pointing to this discussion to explain to anyone reading the AfD why the page has been undeleted. Cunard (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to undelete the article's history if nothing is to be merged, Cunard. Just go to Windows Police Pro and create the redirect. Deor (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of history undeletion under a redirect was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link). The encyclopedia does not benefit from keeping the history of Windows Police Pro deleted. Windows Police Pro has good sources and content that any editor could merge to WinFixer. That should be sufficient reason to restore the history and update the AfD with a link to this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: After consultation with a more experienced admin, I've decided to let my close stand. You can create a redirect, I will userfy the article for you (if you think the material would provide useful hints for expanding some other article), or you can take the matter to DRV. Deor (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore history for exactly the reasons given by Mkativerata. Thincat (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history as a not unreasonable request, but at the same time I object to User:Cunard speculating as to my "wishes" and using those in an argument to which I was not notified. If they were interested in getting my support for a particular course of action, they should have approached me first. The user should also be aware that merely stating a disagreement to an opinion on a subjective subject is not "refutation", to misquote John Cleese, it is at best "contradiction" and should be treated as such by closing admins. In short, the restoration should be accompanied by a vigourous trouting. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've got nothing to add to Mkativerata's cogent analysis, with which I totally agree.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to "no consensus"). There was consensus "to do something", as per the closing statement, but there was not consensus to delete. Reading the discussion along the lines "delete" or "not delete", there is certainly a strong current of support for "not delete" options, and therefore it was wrong for the closer to delete. Instead, the closer should have closed as "no consensus" and at most redirected "Rogue security software" as an editorial action supported by the consensus "to do something". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the closer's statement, "If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her" sounds encouragement of sloppy WP:Copyrights compliance. If someone makes *any* use of a deleted page in merging content elsewhere, then all authors of the deleted page require attribution, and this is best achieved by redirecting with mention of of the redirected page in the merging edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the closer of the AfD, I have no comment on this DRV other than that I certainly was not intending any "encouragement of sloppy WP:Copyrights compliance". If a merge had indeed taken place after userfication, I would obviously expect the userfied article (and its history) to be returned to mainspace as a redirect to the article to which the content had been merged, with appropriate explanations. The reasons I declined to reclose the AfD, undelete the article, and redirect it myself—which is what Cunard was requesting—were mainly that (1) there was in the AfD no support for, indeed no mention of, redirection to WinFixer as a possible outcome and (2) I was not, and am still not, sure that Windows Police Pro and WinFixer are identical bits of malware, despite Cunard's single source. To undelete the article (not justified, in my opinion by the AfD discussion) and redirect it on my own account to a target not mentioned in the discussion was more than I was willing to do without further community discussion. Deor (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I argued against a merge/redirect to Rogue security software at the AfD here. The closing admin accepted this argument, writing in the close, "an extended treatment in Rogue security software would indeed seem to be undue weight, so someone might want just to create a redirect from this title to the list article".

    After the AfD was closed, the closing admin discovered that Windows Police Pro was noted in the WinFixer article as an alternative name, which is supported by a reliable source:

    Long, Daniel (2009-10-02). "Fake Antivirus: 5 software titles you should definitely NOT install". PC & Tech Authority. nextmedia. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

    2) WinFixer

    How it works: Frequently launches pop-ups that offer trial versions of anti-virus suites that can scan machines for non-existent infections. To remove the fake Trojan, users must purchase the program.

    Threat value: Used mainly to extort users through credit card fraud.
    Also Known as: WinFixer goes by many names, titles that sound much like genuine security suites. These include WinAntiSpyware, AVSystemCare, WinAntiSpy and Windows Police Pro. There are among 20 other given names for WinFixer.

    I agree with Deor that Windows Police Pro and WinFixer likely are not "identical bits of malware". That the reliable source says WinFixer goes by many titles—including Windows Police Pro—indicates instead that Windows Police Pro is a variant of WinFixer. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Everything Is Made in ChinaList at AfD. There's reasonably good consensus here that while the article has serious problems, it doesn't meet the criteria for WP:A7 because it makes assertions of notability, i.e. claims of released albums. The issues being debated here are better debated at AfD, so (as suggested), I'm going to list this at AfD. SmokeyJoe makes an interesting suggestion that the existence of stable versions on other language wikipedias should be enough to ward off WP:A7 attacks; while I tend to agree with that sentiment, there's no policy to back it up. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Everything Is Made in China (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Disagree about lack of notability.

The band has Russian, Polish, and German articles.

I think that: a) being listed on Spotify; b) having released three albums; c) being active since 2007; d) being known by people outside Russia; e) having been named as "one of the most promising post-rocks bands" by the Russian edition of Rolling Stone [9]; qualifies the band for notability.

Some references in addition to the aforementioned Wikipedia articles: [10] [11]. I wrote on Bbb23 page to no fruition. Also, I can't see the text of the page as it was on 2013, but if the article mentioned the Russian's Rolling Store quote, that automatically disqualifies it for speedy deletion. My mistake for not adding that quote back when I re-created the page.

rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Having reviewed the deleted content, whilst short, the article claimed that the band has released three albums. This is a sufficient claim of significance to defeat a speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album mentions are enough to have mandated a full afd, yes. I have plenty of sympathy with the deleting admin's rationale here, though, and all the "buy this album" external links (from both deleted versions) would have had me twitching towards my G11 button. —Cryptic 12:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my version didn't have a "Buy this album" direct link. It had an external link to the official band homepage (which it actually happens to have a "Buy this album" text/sublink --don't most of band homepages have links for buying their albums? isn't that normal, or even expected? I figure writer's homepages, have links to buy their books, app maker homepages' have link to download their apps, etc.--). It also had a link to the band's Bandcamp, where you can listen to their full three albums for free. rsanchezsaez (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A link or two to the band's official page in the External links section is fine. Inline external links from half the albums and singles to commercial, nearly-contentless pages like http://soundcloud.com/eimicband/sets/album-4/ fail WP:ELNO so badly that I hope you can see how my first impression of the article was "spam". Easy enough to remove them, though, and I am advocating for the article to be restored. —Cryptic 13:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care much if the article is restored, but I do have a few comments. Per WP:BAND, the article doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria listed, at least not on its face. If a band article is not deletable per A7 simply because it's released some albums, no matter what label, or how those albums were produced, then so be it, but I find that's a bit much myself. For example, is an actor article deletable if the actor has appeared in three different TV shows or movies, no matter what the show or movie or what the part? In addition, I was also influenced by a prod of the article in 2013 based on notability, and it was deleted after the prod expired. The article at that point was actually in better shape than the current iteration of the article and yet was gone. All that said, if the community believes the article should be restored, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not know about bands, but for authors, we treat the assertion that an author has published a book by a reputable publisher as sufficient to pass A7 -- though of course not necessarily sufficient for notability. But we do not consider that he passes A7 if it is a self-published book, or even several self-published books, unless there is some indication of significance for them. I do not know what the publication details of these albums may be, but I suspect that self-publishing is rather common for beginning musicians,and is not unknown even for the established. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:BAND or not, the A7 was appropriate. Claiming they had "released" albums is not a credible claim to importance, since anyone can "release" albums on SoundCloud. An asserted association with a notable record company would perhaps be grounds to decline the speedy or overturn it, but that was not the case here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn looking at the Russian article, I very much doubt this will make it past AfD. But there is a claim of significance IMO. I realize that this is debatable, but I prefer to have this "claim" be a very low bar. Otherwise we'll speedy things that actually have a shot at our notability guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there a claim to notability? Yeah, but a pretty pathetic one. Will this make it past AFD? Unlikely. Proponents should spend more time collecting instances of significant coverage in reliable sources rather than wasting time on the most technical of technical overturn efforts only to be shot down at AFD. Like arguing your tyres have just enough tread to be roadworthy while ignoring the fact that your car still doesn't have an engine, doors or a steering wheel. Stlwart111 23:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Russian is decent, but not good enough to find sources and identify them as RS. Rolling Stone one sounds possible though. That said, part of the point here is that we shouldn't be speedy deleting things that have a claim to notability. The speedy is there for clear-cut cases. This isn't one. And that's an important thing. It feels like a claim that cops shouldn't enforce the speed limit because there are more important crimes out there... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And to be clear, my suggestion isn't that we shouldn't (technically) be overturning it, just that it would be pointless (from a bureaucratic and functional standpoint) to do so. If an admin wants to undelete this, have it sent to AFD and then delete it again in 7 days, I won't object. But I question whether that is helpful to the proponents. To strain an already strained metaphor further - letting someone off their speeding fine, only to fine them later for dangerous driving. Stlwart111 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bureaucratic and functionally may be worthless, but sometimes you have to do the "right" thing even if seemingly worthless. IMO, unfair speedy deletions turn off possible Wikipedia contributors. If my driving license has expired please do tell me about it, but don't wrongly fine me for speeding. :-) -rsanchezsaez (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but we would be overturning a speedy deletion just to give a bunch of people the chance to kick the excrement out of your work over the course of 7 days before it is deleted again, in effect punishing you twice. If you're a glutton for it, so be it. Just seems cruel and unnecessary to me. Stlwart111 06:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. Suggest that articles with stable versions in other languages should not be subject to WP:CSD#A7. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that's a useful standard to follow, looking at the three here 1 has a notice suggesting that it needs references to sources, the other 2 have no such notice but no references. References to non-RS is never a good argument and we certainly know this project, let alone other wikipedia projects, are certainly not RS. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." Wikimedia Foundation vision statement. Yet, editors keep enforcing petty rules and regulations about lack of notability. I maintain that this band is notable (and that the spam accusations are ludicrous). How Wikipedia rules allow that a Russian band with 5000 likes on FB [12], three albums on Spotify and that has played internationally (e.g., 2014 Waves Vienna Music Festival) is beyond me. I bet that this band will get a valid Wikipedia article sooner or later. I'll just wait for it. You guys can keep "cleaning" wikipedia so it conforms to your notability standards. -rsanchezsaez (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Qaster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qaster
  • The first edit in March was deleted because it lacked notability
  • After several months, Qaster has earned Wikipedia:Notability according to the standards of Wikipedia's policy. (Many neutral references)
  • Qaster's article was deleted again because the contents were too similar to the version from March
  • If the reason for deletion in March was "lack of notability", then a new Qaster article should be judged by the improvement in this "notability" area in November, not by "similarity". --거북이 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please cite some of those claimed neutral references? Stifle (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, textbook G4. The "new" article used identical wording to various pre-afd versions, even the same incorrect punctuation; and had zero references, not "many neutral" ones. WP:BURDEN. I don't get how 25 October 2014 to 19 November 2014 is "several months", either. —Cryptic 12:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for same reason as above. All of the references seem to be of the "new product has launched" type, or "company xxx has invested $yyy in up-and-coming product zzz". (Disclaimer: I deleted the most recent version (with absolutely no links), and translated a couple of sources with Google Translate.) Bjelleklang - talk 14:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Usr:Cryptic as a completely correct application of CSD G4. The two versions of the article were not just "similar", even the odd punctuation is identical across both versions, which is a bit of a giveaway. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. I can't see an obvious problem. The nomination is unconvincing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Serhiy Bondarchuk(Heaven's Hundred) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He was recently awarded title Hero of Ukraine, the highest national title. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nazar Voytovych (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He was recently awarded title Hero of Ukraine, the highest national title. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Oleksandr Kapinos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He was recently awarded title Hero of Ukraine, the highest national title. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Boyd Bushman – Endorsed. This discussion is a microcosm of why we need to stick rigedly to reliable independant secondary sourcing rather then trying to draw conclusions ourselves from primary material. Consensus here is clear. The sources adduced don't stack up and the deletion therefore was policy based and reasonable. I note that there was no discussion with the deleting admin prior to the DRV. In these circumstances it seems rather harsh to complain about the lack of a closing rationale, especially as one was provided quite quickly after the deleting admin was made aware of the dissent. – Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Boyd Bushman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Boyd Bushman was a well known person, and was cited in books and documentaries (see the deleted page). There currently is a war going on to silence any information about him. Nobodyimportant123 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn to Restore Bushman was an actual person interviewed in books and documentaries! Why is he being silenced?? Restoring or recreating his page is the straightforward and obvious solution! Anything otherwise is censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.246.5 (talkcontribs)
  • overturn to NC I'd like to see the original article, but there were sources provided (though not great) and a numeric consensus to keep. It's possible there were a lot of SPAs here (though looking I don't think there were more than 1 or 2). And perhaps WP:EVENT arguments should carry the day. But the arguments didn't find consensus (IMO) and the closer didn't give us a clue why he deleted. IMO, there isn't consensus either way, so NC it is baring a clear explanation as to why deletion is the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A somewhat reluctant endorse. I have to be blunt. I don't like the way this was closed. It was a contentious debate. It had a lot of participants. They were owed reasoning for the outcome. Yet there was no reasoning given by the closer, and the closer's contribs timing suggests the lack of reasoning reflects no more than two minutes worth of thought ([14] [15]). I usually !vote to overturn these closures as a matter of principle and ask that they be re-closed. Closing rationales are important (a) as a matter of respect to a debate's participants, and (b) to explain the reasoning behind the decision and thus make transparent any errors that may have been committed. But in this case I do think there was a clear, albeit rough, consensus to delete. The late trend of delete !votes is always telling in cases like this, and Edison's argument (which was in substance if not in form an argument to delete) was particular compelling. So asking it to be re-closed would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer. Mkativerata is correct that I should perhaps have explained my closing rationale a bit more, but correctly deduces my thinking: During the debate sources were suggested, but despite that, of the late !votes went for "delete" and I decided that there was a better case for "delete". As for the time used to evaluate the debate, that certainly was more than 2 minutes, even though it doesn't seem so. First, I always edit with multiple tabs open and switch between them. Second, I first looked at this debate about a week ago (if I remember correctly) and watch listed it. I often do this with more contentious debates and follow the discussion "in real time" and then close when a consensus seems to be emerging. If people think it is useful at this stage, I can add the above rationale to the AfD and apologize for indeed being a bit brief in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation. This man was highly notable as perhaps -the only- research scientist working within Lockheed's Skunk Works program to ever speak publicly on the topic of advanced theoretical and experimental propulsion concepts, and the dozens of high quality patents issued under his name and for Lockheed is incontrovertible proof of his employment and scientific standing at the company. He has also appeared in books and mainstream media since The Discovery Channel's "Billion Dollar Secret" video in 1999. Nick Cook describes his meeting with Bushman at Lockheed, and while Cook's conclusions are questionable, his journalistic standing as an aerospace journalist for Jane's Defense Weekly defines him as a credible source. But everything about the Boyd Bushman WP grew increasingly disturbing from the moment that a war of opinions flared up over Bushman's "death bed confession" video. Suddenly that unfortunate video became the major (if not only) subject on this man's WP - it was appalling to witness. Boyd Bushman was an accomplished, ingenious, gentle and patriotic man with a lifetime serving his country's defense efforts, it was Tragic to see his memory reduced to a parody of a circus sideshow. I'm glad the WP about him was deleted - it's better to have no page at all than what was up. But Bushman's unique scientific legacy and his fascinating appearances in the media, and the many curious people who want to know more about him, cry out for a well-written and balanced WP to address the many questions he raised. I hope that one day Boyd Bushman will get the fair and substantive WP he deserved, written by impartial new authors who can write about the whole of this man's story, rather than focusing on the one serious and very public lapse of judgement that he made in his dying days. Informedskeptic (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC or Relist. By the !counting the !votes !criteria, There's no consensus here to do anything. The closing admin certainly has the authority to decide that !votes on either side should be discounted because they don't make policy-based arguments, or a number of other reasons. In that case, however, the people who participated deserve a comprehensive explanation of why. Especially in the case of what's obviously a contentious issue. No such explanation was given. As for the 2-minute review period, I seem to remember (although I can't find the reference now) that this issue has come up a couple of times before. It's not really anybody's place to tell another editor what process flow they should use, but once an issue is raised numerous times, it might be worth considering whether it really is a problem. Personally, I don't see any way a complex AfD like this could be closed without the better part of a half hour devoted to carefully reading everything that was written, taking notes, checking up on the edit histories of suspected WP:SPAs, composing a summary, etc. How this could be done in parallel with closing a whole bunch of other AfDs, or what purpose that would serve, is beyond me. None of the issues in isolation would be enough to make me want to overturn this close, but between the dubious decision, the one-word closing statement, and the unusual speed-editing history, this adds up to a bad close. The best thing is probably to back out the close, relist it for another week, then have a new admin look at it from a fresh perspective. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you mean with "this issue has come up a couple of times before", in connection with me, you'll have to refresh my memory, because I don't remember that, but perhaps you meant this more in general. As for "How this could be done in parallel with closing a whole bunch of other AfDs", the answer is: it wasn't done in parallel with closing other AfDs. In the space of many hours, that was the only close I did. If you look over my edit history, you'll see that me edit session started 3 hours and 11 minutes before I closed this AfD. During that time, I made a modest number of mostly small edits of minor importance. A lot of the in-between time was spend on this AfD (which, I remind you, I had already been following). So perhaps I made the wrong call with my close and I have no problem with the community deciding that (and if they do, I'll try to learn from that). But I don't think you should dismiss my close on the basis of incorrect information. I spend quite some time on it and it was not a part of a series of closes, but just one single one in the space of a 3 hour edit session. --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question: how do you spend quite some time on something like this and then close with zero explanation? If it's easy, sure. But if it required that much time/thought, doesn't it seem reasonable to expect you to spend some of that time explaining things? And yeah, others doing this type of "multi-page open" closing has certainly come up before. Not sure who it was though. It's a reasonable thing to do, but it does raise doubts when it's paired with a 4 or 5 word close. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm mixing you up with a somebody else regarding the quick-close, my apologies. But, that was the least of my concerns. While I would have probably argued to delete had I participated in this AfD, I just don't see a delete consensus in the written record, and the one-word close just doesn't give me any confidence that this was carefully considered. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with Randykitty's explanation for an innocent closing error; this doesn't need to be pursued to the bitter end. Also, to me it appears there is a strong delete consensus. (I take into account the sudden influx of one-off accounts and IP editors that became active after UFO enthusiast blogs started posting that the Illuminati were trying to get Boyd Bushman's Wikipedia entry deleted.) BlueSalix (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The article isn't encyclopedic and its content is alien nonsense. The closer was unwise not to give a reason for deletion however the keep arguments are weak and don't do anything other than argue this alien nonsense isn't really nonsense. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I obviously goofed in not giving a better closing rationale and can't really remember what I was thinking at that particular moment. If you look at the closes I did later that day (also rather contentious AfDs; I tend to close overdue AfDs, so I guess I get a larger than usual proportion of those), you'll see that this is not usually what I do. I am currently on a borrowed computer and a bad Internet connection, but I'll try to write a closing statement tomorrow. Not doing that at the time of closing was a mistake and I apologize for that. --Randykitty (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist / *Allow recreation I think a fair wiki entry highlighting the man's accomplishments should be done. Boyd had an existing article on wiki since 2007. Just because some folks don't like what he shared in a youtube video shouldn't mean his entire existence and work should be deleted / ignored. This isn't fair to him and his achievements. A single paragraph mentioning the controversy could be included to satisfy those who come here after hearing what he said in the 2014 video ( maybe two sentences, if that ). I think his career should be highlighted and most if not each of his patents should be listed and connected with other scientific achievements found on wiki. This is an encyclopedia and his career's efforts are a contribution to modern science. The sockpuppet and meatpuppet issue should be looked into. There were some anonymous and unknown ip addresses voting and adding their share of clout. --HafizHanif (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are some RS that detail the "man's accomplishments?" He was only ever mentioned anywhere in connection with his alien conspiracy theory. He had no career achievements. The fact that UFO-Fansite.blogspot.com claimed he invented (developed) the Stinger missile doesn't mean he invented the Stinger missile. He was a self-aggrandizing nutter. BlueSalix (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something personally against Boyd? The man has an extensive career in the aerospace industry which garnered over 30 patents! He wasn't just some employee working for 30 years at the same job, he was a private contractor and developed some technologies which are top secret. That's pretty significant and on its own is enough to garner him an entry on wikipedia. There are thousands of insignificant wiki entries which garners the attention of those who like to sweep the wiki floors. The alien thing came up recently, went viral and that brought attention to Boyd's entry which has been here since 2007. Why didn't you and all the other endorsers delete his entry prior to this fall / 2014? What I see is this man's accomplishments are being judged and diluted by haters who dislike what he had to say in some video. People should judge according to the facts of this man's career accomplishments and his merits. There are less significant scientists with wiki entries. --HafizHanif (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. What are some sources that detail his "extensive career in the aerospace industry?" Go ahead and post them here and, if they're RS, I'll revoke my endorsement. (Also, no, the alien thing didn't come up recently. Bushman has been claiming alien cover-up for years on the UFO convention circuit. It only went viral recently because they spiced it up with "death bed confession.") BlueSalix (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the list of patents. You could click through each one and see what they are all about: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=boyd+bushman&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= I hope just because a majority consensus has issue with this man isn't grounds to prevent him and his work from being displayed for everyone to learn from... this isn't Nazi Wikipedia, it is supposedly a democratic place where, I assume, rights and reason trump majority ignorant rule. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list of patents is irrelevant. We don't create bios that consist of nothing but a list of patents, see: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, a list of patents from the USPTO is a primary source. BlueSalix (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Szzuk (talk). Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse This is falling into the "five days of YouTube infamy" level of non-notoreity. The only even vaguely reliable sources are debunkers, and it comes down to "is having a Snopes entry enough?" People saying "peep" give vague assurances; people saying "delete" or "redirect" give concrete evidence. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Original article was based on tabloid reports (e.g. Daily Mail) and YouTube videos, not typical RS. Subject of article has no RS detailing his accomplishments outside his so-called "death bed confession." This article could only serve as a magnet for UFO weirdos. It should be salted to prevent recreation. BlueSalix (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueSalix – you said “Bushman has been claiming alien cover-up for years on the UFO convention circuit,” but I’ve seen no evidence of this, ever - please provide a RS. I’d also like to see a RS to support this characterization “He was a self-aggrandizing nutter,” which strikes me as possibly libelous, but certainly impertinent - it's plain from his interviews (especially with the rather vacant Sereda) that this is a very kind and patient man. And the facts refute this assertion “He had no career achievements” – the man invented a laser thruster that uses detonated air for propellant[1], and discovered the principle of magnetic beam amplification[2]…a basic physics principle that was overlooked for 200 years, which is rife with practical applications. Bushman’s patents prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a remarkable research scientist and inventor employed at Lockheed in the 1990’s. But there’s also evidence of this in reliable journalistic sources. Nick Cook [16], an aerospace journalist at Jane’s Defence Weekly, describes a personal meeting at Boyd Bushman’s office at Air Force Plant No. 4, Fort Worth TX (‘’The Hunt for Zero Point’’, 2007, pp. 244-256). Cook states:
"Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-016 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force."
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307419436
http://vielewelten.at/pdf_en/the%20hunt%20for%20zero%20point.pdf
Video of this interview in Bushman’s office is seen in the 1999 Discovery Channel program ‘’Billion Dollar Secret.’’
It seems that your hostility for the people arguing that the alien doll is a real alien, is being focused against the lamentably gullible, though marvelously accomplished Boyd Bushman. This WP shouldn’t be reduced to a jihad between the “alien believers” and the “alien disbelievers.” This should be about Boyd Bushman, the only black projects research scientist who ever had the courage to speak publicly about his work. Millions of people want to know about this man, Wikipedia has a mandate to oblige them. Informedskeptic (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A passing reference in one book does not meet our GNG. Also, you can't defame a dead person under U.S. libel law. I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted. And no, Wikipedia does not "have a mandate to oblige" so-called "millions" of UFO enthusiasts. I think you've confused Wikipedia with Above Top Secret. BlueSalix (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see your evidence that Boyd "Bushman has been claiming alien cover-up for years on the UFO convention circuit," and that he "was a self-aggrandizing nutter," as you stated. Personal opinions/ideologies are the problem here, not the solution.
WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
  • Significant coverage – the extent of coverage is too daunting to comprehensively compile, but includes these sources among hundreds of others:
San Antonio Express News[3], Inquistr[4], HNGN[5], World News[6]
Bushman also appears as a central figure throughout Davida Sereda’s 2007 documentary From Here to Andromeda[7]
  • Reliable Sources – in addition to the list above, Bushman has appeared in The Discovery Channel's 1999 TV documentary Billion Dollar Secret[8], as well the book The Hunt for Zero Point (available from Random House[9]), both by Nick Cook[10]. Nick Cook is a veteran aviation and aerospace journalist with over a decade of experience as Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly[11] probably the world’s most reputable military technology news source.
  • Notability – Boyd Bushman is the only research scientist within the US defense industry’s “black world” to ever speak publicly about his work on advanced research projects. His 28+ known patents are distinguished by their Assignee, the Lockheed Corporation, as well as their scientific ingenuity: Bushman invented a pulsed laser thruster that detonates air to create shock waves for propulsive force, eliminating the need for propellant[12]; an active radar stealth technology[13]; and he discovered an ingenious method for producing an amplified magnetic beam[14]; as well as a method for producing aerodynamic lift without rotors by using standing acoustic waves[15], among many others. As an inventor, Boyd Bushman rivals or exceeds the ingenuity of Thomas Edison.
Like many interested readers of Wikipedia, Boyd Bushman’s notable scientific achievements and his unique position within the defense industry’s top aerospace research programs inspired years of study and interest in his work long before the recent video undermined his public standing. I maintain that falling prey to the hoax *perpetrated upon him* is not a reasonable or justifiable cause to delete him from Wikipedia, and in fact, the current tempest of media coverage only reinforces the need for a fair and balanced WP about this unique individual and his professional achievements. Informedskeptic (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail, Mirror, the rest of the tabloids you list, are not RS. The high school graduate and UFO carnival lecturer David Sereda (who claims Earth is a giant space prison built by Martians) is not RS. I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances. Unfortunately, Boyd Bushman was a self-aggrandizing nutter whose memory will have to live on only on members.fortuncity.com/freakzilla/bushmanlives.html, and not WP. Sorry. BlueSalix (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the bad sources being offered as reliable, this was my favorite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You both seem to be confused about the headings I’ve employed for clarity – everything you cite as “not RS” is listed under my "Significant Coverage" heading, which directly pertains to WP:GNG. Nevertheless, in the post-journalism era, many of those sources are about as good as sources get nowadays, unless a story makes BBC News. As you can see above, the only RS that I’m unambiguous about (since apparently anything other than BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press is open to RS challenges), is Nick Cook, a veteran Aviation Editor for ‘Jane’s Defence Weekly’, and his book, which is published by Random House). And since Cook actually visited with Boyd Bushman at the Air Force Plan No. 4 in Fort Worth Texas to conduct his videotaped and transcribed interview (while accompanied by a Lockheed minder), there’s no reasonable doubt that Bushman was who Cook said he was – a scientist at Lockheed’s Skunk Works program. And of course there are the patents, which name the Lockheed Corporation as the Assignee.
  • @BlueSalix – if you hold your own assertions to the standards you’ve set here, then you should have RS to demonstrate that Boyd Bushman appeared regularly at ufo conferences, and that he’s a self-aggrandizing nutter. Facts are always nice, because we're not here to fabricate lies, right?
#1 - No, I don't need RS to state that Boyd Bushman was a regular fixture on the UFO carnival circuit or he was a self-aggrandizing nutter. Why not? Because I haven't attempted to insert that into a WP article. #2 - I can patent something and name Lockheed as the assginee tomorrow. Anyone can name anyone as the assignee of a patent, with or without the assignees permission. The patents simply show he paid a $130 filing fee and establish absolutely nothing else. #3 - We're not confused by your headings, you seem to be confused by what constitutes significant coverage. Significant coverage has to occur in RS or it never existed, as far as WP is concerned. "Significant coverage" and "reliable sources" are not two separate standards that have to be met, they are the same standard: significant coverage in reliable sources. BlueSalix (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.) I'm not asking for evidence on behalf of WP content, I'm asking you to support your claims because you made them. And honestly I think you're making things up to advance your "cause"/"crusade" against Bushman. It's obvious that your biased - you nearly called the guy a pedophile for god's sake. So if you can’t support your claim, then just admit that you fabricated it so we can move on. I’ve read a lot about Bushman over the years, and I've never seen anything about an appearance at even a single ufo conference (if I had, I might've actually gone to one). He appeared at a clean energy conference once, but it also included a range of reputable scientists from NASA and major universities. Do you think all scientists are self-aggrandizing nutters? Because there may some truth in that, after all.
2.) Well, that's actually beside the point, since Nick Cook personally visited Boyd Bushman at Air Force Plant No. 4 in Fort Worth, Texas, to conduct his videotaped and transcribed interview with Bushman during his employ at Lockheed (which is publicly available, and I've cited below), so we know that much (after all, a 10+ year Aviation Editor for 'Jane’s Defence Weekly' and mainstream freelance aerospace journalist certainly qualifies as a RS). Anyway, I've never heard of anyone assigning their patents rights to an independent entity, ever, and the idea that someone would do that 28+ times, at a personal expense of at least $10K per patent (that's a conservative estimate for writing and researching previous embodiments, which is SOP in patent law – ask any patent attorney, I know one if you'd like his number).
3.) I see what you're saying, but if the field of "reliable sources" consists of a handful of international news outlets, then we're in trouble - because those folks don't cover much of real interest, and they've been cutting way back on bona fide journalism, at least in the US. So some reasonable level of discretion seems merited, weighing the available facts we have, using our brains to balance quantity vs. quality etc. Bushman has had a Lot of coverage, spread across of range of sources - I found a lot of real, professional media sources, many of which seem basically reputable (maybe not BBC level, but who is?). So I made those headings for clarity, to illustrate that a lot of middling sources, and one or two really solid RS's, should be satisfactory, if not ideal. The headings were directly from the WP on Notability[16] which you referenced as an objection to Bushman meriting a WP. If you go look, you’ll see that it breaks down the "General notability guideline" into five components listed in bullet points; “Significant Coverage,” “Reliable,” “Sources,” “Independent of the subject” and “Presumed.” Nowadays just about the only new items that satisfy an unambiguous historical clarity are Presidential elections, and Kanye West’s love life, so some level of discretion is called for. And we have basically what we need here to justify a WP on Boyd Bushman - it would be nice to have more, sure, but it's better to have a fact-driven WP on the man, than pretend he never rose to the widespread public interest. After all, how much stuff can we reasonably expect to have on a scientist who spent his entire life working in the nation's most secretive defense research projects? BBC News headlines just don’t happen to such people. And honestly, how many WP’s can honestly meet the immaculate standards of RS that you’re demanding here, and why didn't it matter a month ago before this went viral? I'm just saying, it was enough before all this, we have more now, and it’s unreasonable to expect more than we have. The guy was a fascinating figure, with a unique standing in military defense research programs, and a barrel of sophisticated professional achievements which we have in our hands. We have Plenty on this guy. Or at least, enough to merit a factual WP. Informedskeptic (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhlrich's lists more than 25,000 peer-reviewed academic journals (collectively publishing more than 1.5 million articles just since 2004), all of which are RS. Any non-fiction book by a reputable author from a major publisher printed in the last 100 years is RS, as is any recent academic textbook. Virtually all of the 1,300+ daily, non-tabloid newspapers in the U.S. are RS, as are thousands of Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. newspapers. Thousands of websites from Phys.org to WIRED to Defense News are RS. If you can't find any reference to Boyd Bushman in any of these hundreds of thousands of places spanning hundreds of billions of pages of text, then he doesn't get in WP. If you don't like the rules you can petition to have them changed here: WP:CENTRAL. Until they're changed, however, they apply to Boyd Bushman. That's all there is to it - end of discussion. (P.S. Daniel Raymer, Mary G. Ross, Bert R. Bulkin and dozens of other former legitimate TS-cleared Skunk Works scientists have had exactly zero problem meeting these standards for an article on WP.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhlrich's lists more than 25,000 peer-reviewed academic journals
Unfortunately, privately-employed research scientists at companies like Lockheed, General Dynamics, and Hughes Aircraft, just don’t publish academic papers, so that’s out.
Any non-fiction book by a reputable author from a major publisher printed in the last 100 years is RS
Nick Cook’s book 'The Hunt for Zero Point'[17] satisfies those criteria (a ten-year veteran Aviation Editor at 'Jane's Defence Weekly' and mainstream freelance aerospace journalist is about as reputable as authors come in this area), and it establishes Bushman as an actual research scientist working at Lockheed’s Skunk Works in Fort Worth. That's a better reference than the Amsterdam News article cited to establish Mary G. Ross’s background there[18].
Virtually all of the 1,300+ daily, non-tabloid newspapers in the U.S. are RS, as are thousands of Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. newspapers
Okay, that’s a lot more reasonable than I thought. I sifted through a bunch of sources to weed out the rabble, consulting Wikipedia’s assessments of the sources whenever possible, but honestly, pretty much everything nowadays looks like rubbish to me. Even the comparably reputable news sites had enough bloatware to crash my browser. Here are some citations from some of the more or less “mainstream” news sources I found online:
The San Antonio Express-News[19]
The Raw Story[20]
The Arizona Republic[21]
TVQC, Quebec[22]
The Daily Dot[23]
ABC’s Jim Ryan on Newstalk Florida (audio) [24]
The Inquistr[25]
Georgia Newsday[26]
All this proves though is that the recent Bushman story has gotten around, and how. At least 3 million people have seen the video, according to ‘The Raw Story’[27]. Like it or not, Boyd Bushman is now certainly an internationally notable figure, with more mainstream press attention than ever before, and enough solid data to establish his credentials. He should have a WP. But it should not be written by people who can't tell a plastic puppet from a Pleiadian. It should offer the good information we have on the man and his work, and leave the wild speculation to the blogosphere, where it belongs. Informedskeptic (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all exclusively about his alien UFO conspiracy weird-little-green-men woo-woo claims. Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event. You can read WP:ONEEVENT if you'd like to familiarize yourself with our guidelines. Further, they provide no information minimally necessary for a WP:BIO. Where was he educated? When was he born? Occupational history is presented in these articles as claims (e.g. "claimed to work for ..."). Did he actually hold any patents or is this a different person named Boyd Bushman, as an editor here has claimed? Your sources provide no information other than someone named Boyd Bushman claimed to once work for Lockheed and died from a probe in the butt from Martians. (And, BTW, real Lockheed and General Dynamics researchers do, indeed, publish.) BlueSalix (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boyd Bushman was notable years before the recent viral video, and he had a WP before the recent debacle. Which is how I became familiar with his fascinating patents several years ago. Several of the RS provided above tie the Boyd Bushman in the video to the patents, and so do his earlier videotaped interviews, including Nick Cook's interview which took place 15 years ago and isn't woo-woo at all. I've gone into more detail about his below, where you also cynically raised the specter of the fallacious LinkedIn Boyd B. Bushman, who briefly appeared on Wikipedia to promote the new LinkedIn profile he created to stir up some fun (/not). And I've read a Lot of science articles, and I've never seen a single article published by research scientists at Skunk Works, or any other black budget program for that matter. That's why they're called "Classified" black budget projects, which even Congress isn't cleared to supervise. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence most certainly does supervise black budgets. And, no, Bushman was not notable before this. He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin. BlueSalix (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually strangely touching to hear someone trust the military industrial complex for a change. Reminds me of the days before warrantless wiretaps and WMD's in Iraq. And we're getting a bit astray from the subject at hand, but I'll play. It's true that while Congress in general is barred from black budget briefings, some elected officials are supposed to know about everything. A handful of members on four Committees are cleared for "special access program" (SAP) briefings, but the DOD has discretion to decide who has a "need to know." And of course, one won't know what to ask, if one's doesn't already know about it, will one? There are some "Waived SAP" programs that may never see any Congressional oversight at all. Which is why all of the people who study black budget projects tend to agree that we don't know how much we don't know, and neither do the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and Appropriations Committees. This very question came up in Nick Cook's interview with The Atlantic[28], I'm sure you're pleased to hear:
"In your experience, just how black are these programs? Don't they have to be reported to certain U.S. Congress members?"
"Well, the black world has opened up. There are reporting mechanisms designed to keep Congress, or certain very highly cleared members of Congress, aware of what is happening in the black world. However, having said that, there are degrees of black, and at the blackest, there are undoubtedly programs that are not cleared by Congress, again for the very reasons that I have just discussed.
For the TV program Billion Dollar Secret I interviewed a congressman called Dana Rohrabacher, who was the chair of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and of the House Science Committee. Now, he was convinced that the U.S. military had developed an aircraft like the one referred to in the book as Aurora, which is a hypersonic, very fast spy-plane prototype. But he said that his efforts to get any information on that program, if indeed it exists, were constantly frustrated. And he's an influential member of the science panel in Congress." https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-05.htm
And here's a nice quote from an old 1989 brief by the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division of the Congressional Research Service, "Special Access Programs and the Defense Budget: Understanding the 'Black Budget'"[29]:
"No one may have access to program information requiring special access controls solely on the strength of rank, title, or position." (p.6) Followed by:
"6. What oversight is there for non-intelligence, DOD special access programs?"
"There is always some discrepancy in bureaucracies between formal procedures and actual practice. The procedures outlined here reflect DOD procedures as formally outlined in directives and regulations. They may or may not be wholly consistent with actual practice." http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB87201.pdf
It's always comforting when the Congressional Research Service concludes: "well, they're really supposed to inform you guys about this stuff, basically, but y'know, boys will be boys..."
And here's what a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to say about it:
"We had a classified annex to our bill, and we would hide all sorts of things in there," says Jim Currie, who worked as a Democratic staff member at the Senate Intelligence Committee until 1991 and now teaches at the National Defense University. "In theory, any member of Congress could find out about it, but in reality no one ever came in and checked. ... It's a beautiful way to hide something." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-08-pentagon-spending_x.htm
And then sometimes things just kinda slip, and we see that not everybody's playing by the rules:
"in funding requests and authorizations voted on by select committees of the US Congress, the black budget is published with omitted dollar amounts and blacked-out passages. It hides all sorts of strange projects, not just from enemies, foreign and domestic, but from the public and elected officials as well. Last year, for instance, it was revealed that the National Reconnaissance Office had for several years used the black budget to hide from Congress the cost and ownership of a $300 million office building, even though the structure was plainly visible from Route 28 west of Washington, DC." http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/patton_pr.html
Anyway, Boyd Bushman was a notable public figure for years before this ugly mess flared up, and my summation down below makes that clear. Hopefully reason, facts, and compliance to WP:GNG and guidelines will win the day. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing admin should have written a more detailed closing summary, but it's clear that the delete decision was informed by strong policy-based arguments made at the AfD; WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, and WP:SENSATION, in particular, rather than very emotional but non-policy-based arguments such as "the subject deserves a memorial", or "the subject is notable because of having filed patents", or "tabloids are suitable sources" for the subjects biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a closing rationale to the AfD and re-iterate my apologies for not doing so earlier. I consider myself trouted and will try to avoid this mistake in future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is the list of patents. If this isn't RS, then what in the world is? You could click through each one and see what they are all about: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=boyd+bushman&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= I hope just because a majority consensus has issue with this man isn't grounds to prevent him and his work from being displayed for everyone to learn from... this isn't Nazi Wikipedia, it is supposedly a democratic place where, I assume, rights and reason trump rule by the ignorant or indifferent majority. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patents are primary sources. Also, patents, like scientific articles, get published all the time. Most patents never lead to any application at all. Even if they do, what we need is independent coverage of them in order to establish notability for the inventor. Nobody denies the patents exist, but having patents is not enough to become notable, just as an author does not become notable simply because they have published books. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The patents have to do with top secret technology. They are weapons systems. I don't think the U.S. government desires to publicly publish weapon's technology. This is a very technical issue here and reason needs to be considered aside from sticking to technicalities. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's too bad. But if something is so secret that we cannot evaluate its impact, then we cannot write about it. However, this does not seem to apply here: if it's patented, it's published, publicly available, and not top secret any more. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You suppose wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy, see: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY for more information.BlueSalix (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with a certain amount of reluctance. It's embarrassing and infuriating that we routinely keep the biographies of bit-part actors but we delete the real inventors. However, this article was about fringe claims and extraterrestrials, and we did need to flush it out.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As an inventor/scientist with granted patents I can only agree with your sentiment. My patents are top secret, not because they are hidden from the public but because mine like every other are so unintelligible the general public has literally no chance of understanding them. Szzuk (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually agree, too, but the sad thing of modern life is that every third class actor or athlete gets coverage in reliable sources, enough to pass GNG. Scientists and inventors don't. WP cannot do anything else but reflect that, but it says something about the priorities of modern society. --Randykitty (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's one final remark I'd like to make. As I admitted above, I goofed by not providing a rationale when closing. Normally, though, I'd have provided such a rationale if the person filing this DRV would have followed the instructions given on this page and have discussed the matter with me first. We'd probably have landed here, too, but I'd just like to set the record straight. --Randykitty (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion. This is why we have so many 2-week old editors popping up who don't know how WP works (I'm, frankly, surprised there aren't more showing up yet, but I think many of them can't figure out how to register accounts). I don't believe you did anything that shouldn't correctly be classified as a minor clerical error and o demands for apologies from others are unwarranted and not in GF. BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • “There is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion.” Do you have proof of this? If anything, it seems like there’s a crusade to disappear Boyd Bushman, and frankly, you seem to be leading the charge. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't entertain conspiracy theories. Personal policy. BlueSalix (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you do, you said “There is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion.” Isn't that a kind of conspiracy? I want proof. It's a reasonable request. Or is it okay to just make up inflammatory falsehoods here? Forgive me, I'm new to all this. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted. BlueSalix (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I joined WP a few weeks ago because I was shocked to see Boyd Bushman’s WP totally re-written and suddenly focusing 'entirely' on the recent and pitiful “death bed confession” video, and a bunch of nonsense about plastic aliens. I'm glad it was deleted, as it stood it wasn't fit for a cocktail napkin. As I looked into it, it turned out that a couple of misguided people had decided that Bushman’s WP would be a good place to make the case for real live dead aliens at Area 51. Sad. I’ve studied Bushman’s patents on and off for years; they’re extraordinary. He invented a pulsed-laser aircraft thruster that detonates the air as a propellant – no fuel required (and also 100% eco-friendly). Boyd Bushman was also the *only* research scientist in the “black world,” in this case Lockheed’s famously secretive Skunk Works program, to ever speak publicly and give us a tiny glimpse inside the minds employed behind those darkened doors. He also comes across as a compassionate and thoughtful, albeit tragically gullible, seasoned old scientist who dedicated his life to his country’s most advanced defense research projects. It’s fascinating and substantive stuff. People have a right to learn all of the available facts about this man, and to have a place to cite new findings as they may arise from reputable sources. We shouldn’t let the rueful reality that the New York Times focuses more on witless politicians and reality TV stars, than cutting-edge innovators, to undermine the accessibility of information that people want and need, on topics more scintillating than Kim Kardashian’s rear end. We can't control the dumbing down of the American media, but we don't have to do it 'to ourselves' either. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's great that you studied his patents. We don't do original research on WP, though. See: WP:OR for more information. Maybe you can write a book or something about them. Best of luck - BlueSalix (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a single claim that isn't in the patents themselves, so my statements don't represent original research. But since they are relevant to this discussion, I would suggest that participants engaging in this conversation read a couple of them - I've mentioned two or three gems, cited below. The quality of his work is self-evident to any reasonably educated mind. And it seems disingenuous to rally a crusade against Boyd Bushman's significance (and his character, and his real or fictional public appearances, as some have done here), without being at least marginally familiar with his accomplishments. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do original research on WP, including personal assessments as to the scientific significance of patent applications, as we have no way to establish the credentials of any of our editors to reach these conclusions. You will need to find a RS that states the significance of his patents. For example, the raw application for the Einstein Refrigerator patent is not an acceptable source to establish the notability of Albert Einstein. However, this article from The Guardian [[17]] about the Einstein Refrigerator patent is an acceptable source to establish the notability of Albert Einstein. Please refer to WP:OR for more information. BlueSalix (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "I disagree" is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, relisting is not going to fix the dearth of reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I just wanted to point out the class act BlueSalix is. Too bad I can't slap you a high five through my iPad. He slanders a dead man. He makes up instigating and fear mongering claims writing: "there is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion" and then follows that with "Sorry, I don't entertain conspiracy theories. Personal policy." How would the genius behind the name BlueSalix know anything going on with ufo websites ( conspiracy theories galore) if he's not over there reading about it? Talk about a "self-aggrandizing nutter." He easily dismisses arguments made, concludes with his bias and comes back with more vitriol. Is this the type that is representative of contributors to Wikipedia? He and some other bozo have trolled me and now have both challenged my contributions, calling for deletion. I wonder how many times the BlueSalix has been blocked... --HafizHanif (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't slander a dead person under U.S. libel law, which is the jurisdiction that presumably applies to Boyd-O since that's supposedly the dirt in which he's buried (along with his B.A. from BYU [his highest educational credential]). And "slander" is a legal term; it has no colloquial use. Ergo, I have not slandered anyone. This is the third time you've bombastically inserted this claim which is veering very close to violating our WP:CHILLING policy, if it hasn't already. As for the rest of your comment, in which you call me a "bozo" [sic] and declare that I'm biased, you'd be well-advised to read WP:CIVIL and then refactor it. I realize you've only been here for a couple weeks - and are unlikely to stick around after the final nail is hammered into Boyd's WikiCoffin - which is why I'm going to let it slide. BlueSalix (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you misread and arrive at misconstrued assumptions. This is the first time I called you a slanderer. You are thinking my response was InformedSkeptic's response. Secondly, I have not been on here for two weeks or so, but longer. Thirdly, I think I successfully pointed out what I intended as a public notice. Fourthly, just because someone is deceased doesn't mean one should dance over their grave, but doing so says more than I can ever write. --HafizHanif (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
uh huh BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please discuss the issue not each other. If someone feels provoked and the other person started it, which I don't want to get into, please just let it slide. It won't matter once this exercise is over. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To lighten the mood, if anyone wants a good laugh, here is the most breathless and frantic denunciation of the "Wikipedia cover-up" charges circulating in the slimy underneath of the web: [[18]]. There are a score more but this was the most hilarious and rambling of those denouncing the deletion of Bushman's entry. BlueSalix (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Patents Please note that an editor who states his name is "Boyd B. Bushman" claims to be the inventor of the patents in question, that "alien nutcase" Bushman is a different man who simply shared a similar name and used it as part of his UFO con. This underscores the fact that a list of patents will be totally unsuitable for this article unless a RS connects them to the man who claimed there was an alien conspiracy, a simple name correlation is insufficient. BlueSalix (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick Cook[30], a ten-year Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly[31] and an award-winning mainstream aerospace journalist, personally interviewed Boyd B. Bushman (there's only one, but you already know that) at Air Force Plant No. 4 during Bushman's employ for Lockheed's Skunk Works program. The interview was video recorded and aired in the Discovery Channel's 1999 documentary Billion Dollar Secret[32], which is about U.S. black budget aerospace programs (an area of some expertise for Nick Cook), and a detailed recounting of the meeting, which Cook transcribed, and discusses in detail in his 2007 book The Hunt for Zero Point[33]. This is a RS firmly tying Boyd Bushman to Lockheed and his impressive list of patents, which of course name Lockheed Corporation as the Assignee of the patents. And although the numerous RS I cited to your specifications early today (listed below) do discuss the recent video, several of them also tie this Boyd Bushman directly to the patents in question, including the radio interview with ABC’s Jim Ryan on Newstalk Florida[34], among others. Informedskeptic (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk (Is "Award Winning" his first and middle name by the way? You prefix his name with that every time you put it in here, as though you're trying to call attention to the fact Boyd-O has that one RS he's clinging to for dear life after the rest have been discredited.) and it keeps getting debunked. I'm not going to do it a ninth time. I get it. You believe there was a guy named Boyd Bushman who, having only got a B.A. from BYU, still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe in August while trying to alert the world to an attack by space invaders. The only evidence of his existence is a YouTube video and a 1 paragraph passage from a 1999 book, but he's so important we need to waive WP's standards to get him an entry. You're absolutely welcome to keep trying if you want, I just don't think you're gonna be able to ATS your way into this. But, you know, whatever. BlueSalix (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point in fact, you've conspicuously ignored Nick Cook's mention every time I've cited him, actually - it's in the record above if you don't believe me. I've also never mentioned his "four Aerospace Journalist of the Year Awards from the Royal Aeronautical Society"[35] before - and that's in the record above too. But this isn't the first time you've just made stuff up, now is it? That's in the record above too. The evidence that Boyd Bushman existed (lol), and was a terrific innovator (albeit, a tragically gullible man), and an overall nice guy...is incontrovertible, based on all of the information we have right now. But one has to be willing to click on the citations, and read them. There are at least 28 patents in his name, some of truly extraordinary quality. There are three lengthy video interviews (Billion Dollar Secret 1999, From Here to Andromeda 2007, and the recent and awful "death bed confession" video). And he's discussed at length in Nick Cook's book The Hunt for Zero Point, 2001. There's also a comprehensive record of his work experience[36] (which was on his own website, so Wikipedia doesn't allow it for a WP reference - but it does exist, and it confirms everything else we know about him). And there's also a comprehensive description of his life, his family, his education, and confirmation of his work record and patents, eloquently described in his family's obituary published in the Arizona Journal[37] - which is also barred from a WP, but further supports the depth and breadth of this man and his achievements. And I don't know what ATS means, but millions of people are now aware of Boyd Bushman - even more than were aware of him before the recent and predominantly lamentable video - so it's certain that we'll see additional reliable sources of information about him, which I trust will confirm the consistent though sometimes non-RS information that we have now. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Nick Cook's credentials, notability is not inherited. This conflict regarding the Boyd Bushman story reminds me of the kerfluffle a few years ago over a similar 'silly season' story that went viral across many dozens of sources, many of them quite reliable: Time_travel_urban_legends#1928_cell_phone_user. The sheer number of news outlets that reprinted the story - during the time period around Halloween week - were staggering. As I recall, there were impassioned arguments for giving the story its own article, or giving the unknown filmmaker who originated the story his own bio, or filling up half the Charlie Chaplin article with time travel nonsense. Luckily, Wikipedia's editorial policies (WP:ONEVENT and WP:SENSATION) prevailed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:NOTINHERITED guideline doesn't apply here because the 1999 documentary film and the 2001 book prominently feature Boyd Bushman, which makes Bushman a key subject of the RS, establishing his WP:NOTABILITY per the WP:GNG. And since many of us have been aware of Boyd Bushman for years, occasionally checking the Wikipedia article for updates about the man prior to the recent and tragic video, the WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SENSATION policies are also inapplicable, as far as I can see. How weird is it that Boyd Bushman had a sensible Wikipedia page for years before the recent video popularized (perhaps "crucified" would be the better term in this instance) the man, but the moment when millions of people want to see what he was all about, suddenly we have this big problem offering a Wikipedia page about him. How does that make any kind of sense? I forced myself to watch that rotten "deathbed disclosure" video again last night, and it's just sad to see it - it's the video equivalent of a drunken voicemail rambling gone viral: we should all pray that someone doesn't leak our most embarrassing and senile moment like this. It's clear as day that the poor old guy is weak and confused, struggling to even speak clearly as he riffles through all that rubbish that someone's been "feeding" him (his word) for the last 13 years. But he was one of the most fascinating figures in the mysterious realm of classified aerospace R&D long before this latest hullabaloo; it's not right to erase him from the public encyclopedia just because people didn't like what he had to say on his deathbed, probably pumped full of toxic chemotherapy drugs. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure / Salting Request - After a thorough discussion, we have 10 !votes to endorse the deletion all from seasoned editors. We have 4 !votes to overturn the deletion, all half from editors whose accounts are less than one month old. Per WP:SNOWBALL, and due to the increasingly hysterical/frantic tone being taken by the new editors, I think immediate closure is warranted to protect both the encyclopedia and our editors. Consideration should also be given to WP:SALTing the article titles "Boyd Bushman" and "Boyd B. Bushman." BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and corrected. BlueSalix (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is a good resource to obtain clarification on the difference between majority voting and consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I wonder if there are any sockpuppets or sleepers which have been used in this discussion.
2) I see few cheerleaders with much to say and several supporters of these cheerleaders with little to say.
3) I don't care whether people look into the subject matter of aliens or not, doesn't make a difference in most people's personal lives, but as an example; it is interesting to read BlueSalix being vehemently against the subject matter, then reading him share his reading of what is going on in ufo fan websites. It seems like a contradiction. I see a colorful way of saying certain things and everyone just seems to accept it / ignore it, while continue their own barrage of ridicule over the subject matter... which again, people are free to opine what they will regarding aliens, Britney Spears, Kim's nudity for publicity and $$ or peanut butter and jelly on White Bread... but the manner in which this topic was discussed was quite foul at times.
4) I'd also like to ask you if anything written on here did in fact constitute Gross Incivility Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks --HafizHanif (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've announced, in a 1200-word essay on my Talk page, you will be block-lobbying me at ANI for WP:CIVIL, I'm sure they can sort it out without dragging Randykitty into this slow-motion car wreck. BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted what you said and added my concerns. I mentioned Randykitty here because she seems to have ultimate authority in choosing the fate of this entry, but also to remind her and others of the manner in which this seven year old entry was deleted. I mentioned my concerns to her and would like to hear her feedback regarding my four points. The record speaks for itself as does the manner in which this issue was debated. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Tip: usually not advisable to raise WP:CIVIL in ANI a few hours after you launch into a tirade in which you call the editor you're denouncing a "bozo," a "slanderer," and a string of other invectives. But, you know, whatever. (The scary part is, this dude will be probably be an admin within the next 6 months.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you forgot to actually file the ANI - you only left the warning on my Talk page. I have filed it against myself on your behalf here. BlueSalix (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Per Informedskeptic list of reliable sources that he listed in this deletion review. Also, in addition, the initial closer, Randykitty, wrote in the closing note added on November 22, "The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name." Randykitty did not have access to that extensive list of reliable sources found later by Informedskeptic. So, WP:GNG requirements have now been met. Remaining objections are WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerning the topics discussed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The disreputable "sources" InformedSkeptic provided above (Daily Mail, etc.) were the list of sources originally provided in the article; see: [[19]], so obviously Randykitty did have access to them as they were all in the article. Timeshifter has previously tried to get user-created funeral home listings inserted as RS into the article about not-notable alien conspiracy theorist Boyd Bushman, so her analysis may be suspect. Finally, Timeshifter was WP:CANVASSED here by HafizHanif (see: [20]). I request either her !vote be struck, or I be permitted to canvass my friends to come here and !vote as well. BlueSalix (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
InformedSkeptic did a much more detailed analysis of the issue of reliable sources here in the deletion review. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if he analyzed the tabloids Daily Mail and Mirror; they're still disreputable and not RS, just like the user-generated website obituary you wanted to use in the original article to establish Boyd-O's status as a black ops secret agent fighting the space alien threat or whatever it was you were blasting the Talk page with when you started 8 separate discussions on the same topic in a 24 hour period. BlueSalix (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consistently ignore your repetitive BS, BlueSalix (unintended pun). I address issues only once where possible. See my previous replies on the talk page, and in the article deletion discussion. I have tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and I am used to people like you. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Your repetitive BS?" "I'm used to people like you?" - I think you really need to observe Metamagician3000's advise and calm down. BlueSalix (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calm. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to other readers. I have noticed a pattern. BlueSalix frequently mischaracterizes the viewpoints and past comments of others. For example, concerning me: "establish Boyd-O's status as a black ops secret agent fighting the space alien threat". So readers who want to know what others have written should go to the original locations of their comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within discretion. I think it is possible an adequate biography can be produced and I hope someone will be able to do this. However. I suggest waiting a while to let things calm down. Our general notability criteria encourage the sort of silly article this one had become while deprecating any serious article. WP:ONEEVENT disallows some of the foolishness but unfortunately does little to help sensible content. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within discretion. Delete "votes" were better argued. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Gathering Consensus to Relist I appreciate Thincat's suggestion about editing in an adequate biography sans ufo / alien references. Perhaps a lock can be put on the page and specific editors / admins assigned to keep watch so the entry doesn't become sensationalized. This would be fair. I also acknowledge Timeshifter's pointing out what RandyKitty wrote. The objections seemingly desire to strain out a gnat in referencing all criteria hurdles to defeat this scientist's entry. The reader can judge by the tone and manner in which the objections have been written. It should be clear to see those objections falling under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT portion of wiki statutes, besides the use of colorful language. Points that have been made have been ignored. As to the notion that I invited TiimeShifter, it is open for the public to see that I did ask him, and I did this not knowing that it was a no-no. So my apologies for not knowing that inviting folks to give their opinion was wrong. I haven't read all the rules on Wikipedia and have read them since they've been pointed out by many editors on this page and other places. With that said, I would like to point out that his input and discussions at the talk page were extensive and independent of me. One could assume he would not have come here to give his point of view on his own without me asking, and one could not deny that he would have come here on his own without me asking. So judge for yourselves if this was done in malice or blatant disregard to the rules. One could read the date and time I did reach out to him and his response... and I left it at that. I am surprised he did say something. As to teamwork and the notion of further wrongdoing by any two editors, I would like to ask anyone to see where else I and TimeShifter appear anywhere on Wikipedia together other than our talk pages and on this particular entry. --HafizHanif (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CANVASSING other editors is not permitted whether you have a history of interaction with those other editors or not. Since the deletion of this nonsense article is clearly going to be upheld, I'm not going to press the matter, however. BlueSalix (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for sharing that link again. I appreciate the grace. --HafizHanif (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. BlueSalix (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If this was relisted and I was asked to close, the outcome would be the same. I can't even begin to rationalize why we're discussing an AFD where the principal arguments for inclusion were "BUT ALIENS!", "THE MAN IS AWESOME" and "HE HAS MANY PATENTS!!!". Also, we need less fringe, not more. This is so far up the fringe ladder it's not even funny. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - I would suggest overturning due to the lack of closing explanation but it would come down to the same result. Besides, Randy has added his rationale to the closing statement now anyway, so this would be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, which is pointless. A comment on the subject itself: there is no reliable source establishing that the Boyd Bushman that so many people have been digging up info on is the same Boyd Bushman who allegedly appears in the video. For the argument that the claims must be true because nobody has proven them false, I refer you to Russell's teapot. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse—Delete !votes are grounded in policy, keep !votes aren't, not really much else to say. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm not really seeing any new argument here that changes the prior consensus. The Delete votes were grounded in policy and the keep votes weren't. Absent some spectacular and new argument there's no reason to undo the delete.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on Discussion As of this time-stamp, there are 14 !votes to endorse the deletion (100% by editors with more than 60 days of edits) and 6 !votes to reinstate the article (50% by editors with less than 60 days of edits). The most common position of endorsers is that the deletion fell within discretion based on a combination of quantity and substance of arguments in favor of deletion. The most common position of reinstaters is that Boyd Bushman has/had "information that people want and need." BlueSalix (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Where a topic is both WP:FRINGE and lacking independent sources, it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. The very notion that the deletion should be overturned because it's a conspiracy to hide Bushman's revelations is further evidence that the article would have ongoing neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Since a consensus is not arrived at by votes, it doesn't make sense for anyone to count anything. I see much grandstanding and ad-hoc arguments in response to what positive consensus states. The man is identified in two documentaries as Boyd Bushman who worked with Lockheed Martin, with patents attributed to a Boyd Bushman who invented items and filed those patents in the same time frame the Boyd Bushman in the two documentaries worked with Lockheed Martin. There is a reference to him in a book, also having worked for Lockheed Martin. There is no other independent citation of another Boyd Bushman having worked for Lockheed Martin during that same time. Ergo, it is the same man! And what in the world does tenure have to do with weight in giving an opinion on this medium? The bureaucracy of many governments is weighted down with tenured incompetent people. With that being said, why do people assume tenure on Wikipedia means they are qualified to draw a consensus over new editors? There is a consensus to build a new / restore an entry with what has already been established and discard the references to ufos / aliens. A lock should be placed on this entry so it cannot be later tampered with without someone noticing. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already !voted. You don't get unlimited !votes. If you have something new to say, go ahead and say it but don't add an additional "Keep" in an effort to pad the UFO enthusiast side in this discussion. I have struck your "Keep" as an AGF edit, AGFing that you did this in error. If, indeed, you intended to !vote multiple times, you should undo my strike and we can address this elsewhere. BlueSalix (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to acknowledge and directly respond to you this one last time. Voting doesn't matter, remember you so stated somewhere far above and added so many other words. All the new voters seem to not have read anything other than your bitter criticism. You've provided entertainment, so much applause goes to you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may not be aware of the difference between voting and !voting. Also, thank you for your applause. BlueSalix (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the "but he's real" arguments are entirely unconvincing, such that I can see why the closer wasn't convinced by them. The "delete crowd" poked holes in the claims of the "keep crowd" that still haven't been filled. Deletion on the basis that coverage is solely confined to tabloid and fringe publications is perfectly within the bounds of discretion. I'd remind participants that closers are not required to add extensive rationales - it's a courtesy and one that the closer has (in this case) gone back and afforded us. The added rationale is comprehensive and serves only to reinforce and restate the flimsiness of the "keep crowd's" arguments. Stlwart111 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the closer ( Randykitty ) was so convinced she wrote this November 22nd: "The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name." It seems some on here like to capitalize on readers who skim over this massive thread and read only the hysterical things... which are from the nays regarding this entry. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "keep crowd" has already established the argument, but it continues to be ignored. It has been highlighted by TimeShifter and InformedSkeptic. Reread their last points above and there you will find the. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've read them, and the AFD discussion and most of the supposed sources. We're not here to re-prosecute the AFD, something many here seem to have forgotten. This isn't "AFD, Round 2". The "keep crowd" got their chance to establish their argument in the AFD and they were ignored because (collectively) it wasn't a very good argument and much of it consisted of "he exists". I believe the closer wrote that because that was a significant thrust of many "keep" arguments - one that he wanted to acknowledge before dismissing it as irrelevant to the question of notability (which he was absolutely right to do). I am undeterred by long threads but, quite plainly, much of this one misunderstands the purpose of the Deletion Review process. Stlwart111 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Request for Clarification and Reliable Sources on Boyd Bushman
@RandyKitty and Administrators – Please clarify the WP conditions not currently met for the Allow Recreation of Boyd Bushman’s article in light of this discussion page. It appears that some editors who forget the WP:NAM policy either object on the grounds of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or feel that the subject fails to comply with WP: NOTABILITY – "General notability guidleline," which states “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” This topic now seems to meet that criteria, as additional RS have been produced (although routinely ignored by everyone, it seems). Specifically, we have:
1.) Billion Dollar Secret, Boyd Bushman is the key figure in this 2-hour documentary that aired on The Discovery Channel in 1999, about top secret US aerospace programs. The production was written and directed by Nick Cook, a highly respected mainstream aerospace journalist for Jane’s Defence Weekly. This event signaled Boyd Bushman’s arrival as a notable public figure.
2.) The Hunt for Zero Point Nick Cook’s 2001 investigative book published by Random House about the history of the US black budget programs, which focuses on Cook’s videotaped interview with Boyd Bushman at Bushman’s Lockheed office situated within Air Force Plant No. 4 in Fort Worth, Texas. Nick Cook is regarded as an expert in black budget aerospace programs, and in addition to his long tenure at Jane’s, has written freelance aerospace articles for respected newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
It’s worth noting here that just yesterday BlueSalix nominated Nick Cook’s Wikipedia page for deletion, right after I cited Nick Cook as a RS in this discussion. Sometimes I think it must be very liberating to live free of moral and ethical conscience.
3.) From Here to Andromeda, David Sereda’s documentary film that revolves around the lengthy interview that he conducted with Bushman at the scientist's home office. Despite Sereda’s difficulty understanding basic science, Bushman provides compelling behind-the-scenes insights into his work at Lockheed Corporation’s top secret research lab at Skunk Works division. Bushman appears to be the only research scientist within black budget programs to publicly discuss on-going advanced propulsion research.
4.) 27+ Patents for Lockheed Corporation - while these documents registered at the US Patent and Trademark Office are WP:PS material, they are permitted to corroborate facts "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." And since this policy directs us to take PS at face value rather than making wild interpretations about their hypothetical validity or not, we can use them as evidence that Boyd Bushman produced these patents for Lockheed Corporation throughout the 1990’s, since the patents themselves name Lockheed Corporation as the “Assignee” (rights holder) of Bushman's inventions.
5.) Additional 'significant coverage in reliable sources' spans a dizzying breadth of recent newspaper articles and radio:
  • The San Antonio Express-News[38]
  • The Raw Story[39]
  • The Arizona Republic[40]
  • TVQC, Quebec[41]
  • The Daily Dot[42]
  • ABC’s Jim Ryan on Newstalk Florida (audio) [43]
  • The Inquistr[44]
  • Georgia Newsday[45]
In closing, I’d like to say that I’m new here and learning as I go, but I’ve been reading up on Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and I noticed that Wikipedia supports administrative discretion. This is wise, because in some cases “mob rule” threatens objectivity and the mission of Wikipedia as I understand it: to provide quality online encyclopedia content on notable topics with fair and impartial, informative articles of interest. And frankly as a new editor here, I’m deeply troubled by the unscrupulous tactics I’ve seen employed on this discussion page – at least one prolific editor has stooped to fabricating and disseminating lies to “win” this debate, and intentionally creating a counterproductive “bully pit” environment where facts are ignored and obfuscated, and a “moving target” of policy objections are disingenuously applied ad hoc to create confusion, and undermine substantive discussion. Thank you for reading. Informedskeptic (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn to No Consensus - The closing of this AfD was atrocious - an abrupt deletion without any explanation, despite a very clear split opinion in the debate among the participating editors, with three days of silence by the closing admin before an unsatisfactory explanation was put forth to explain the deletion. While efforts were made to improve the article while the AfD was underway, it became an out of control affair with too many participants stepping over each other's editing. I would recommend reversing the closure to No Consensus and allowing time for editors that are serious about fixing the article to work on bringing it up to grade. The subject can easily be revisited within a month for another go-round on whether it is deserving of deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me make a small footnote here. Yes, I did not initially provide a rationale for the close (and have already apologized for that multiple times). However, I provided a rationale as soon as I found a moment for that (as the note on my talk page says, I am currently traveling with only intermittent Internet access and limited time to edit WP). In addition, if the DRV filer had followed established procedure and first discussed the issue with me on my talk page, I would have provided that rationale before the DRV would have opened. Thanks --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually glad the old article is down; it wasn't suitable or salvageable. And I don't want to bug you during your trip RandyKitty, but I'd like to ask that sometime before this DRV is closed, you let us know what policies or guidelines would have to be met for a verdict to Allow Recreation of this article from scratch. Thank you. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add that reorienting the article as to cover an internet phenomenon might be a better way of thinking about the topic. Most of the references I've looked at are along the lines of "Wacky old guy goes on at length about aliens on Youtube!". That doesn't help establish the notability of the person, but it might establish the notability of the video. Alternatively, you might decide that discretion is the better part of valor and let this one go. I'm dealing with a parent with dementia who has said many wacky things, but I don't think there's a need to memorialize them in an encyclopedia (even if Glen Beck believed them). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your constructive and thoughtful replies, RandyKitty and Lesser Cartographies – it’s nice to feel like part of a dispassionate and earnest editing discussion about this contentious topic. The wave of contempt I ran into when I arrived here was jarring and demoralizing. I’ve been reading more about primary/secondary/tertiary sources and Bios, and I still have more reading to do, but I think I’m starting to understand the important role of third-party sources. It seems that perhaps many of the closure endorsements are based on the fact (assuming that other editors are checking the facts, it's hard to tell) that the only RS we have to establish Bushman’s scientific standing is perhaps more of a secondary source – an aviation journalist filming and writing about a personal interview (but it was done in his role as a journalist, so I’m still a bit unclear about it). It would be better to have a RS who had never met Bushman publishing about him – that would be a genuine third party source, I’m thinking. The problem being, that the RS’s we have (at least they appear to be RS by BlueSalix’s explanation to me), are all writers jumping on the “what a crazy old idiot this guy was, saying all this bunk about an alien doll and Area 51, lolol!”) – but that’s not at all what was substantive, notable, and compelling about this man. And you’re right Lesser Cartographies, if it's a choice between joining the hysterical lynch mob that has reared up since the recent video appeared, and letting history forget Boyd Bushman, I’d rather bow out and retain my respect for his inventiveness and his courage to go public in the previous interviews that he conducted with Cook and Sereda.
But here’s the thing – this recent debacle was so huge that pretty soon, somebody is going to investigate this man and write about his full story. And in light of his actual career and scientific achievements, people will see this latest video for what it actually is - the tragic effort of a nice old guy who thought he had a big revelation to share with a misled public, losing his marbles on the way out the door, completely snookered by that cowboy-hat wearing con artist hugging a Photoshopped ghost in that stupid alien ghost photo.
What concerns me though, is this – what editor-in-chief is going to approve an investigate piece about a guy who doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page? How many journalists have tried to pull up Bushman’s Wikipedia page in the last few weeks to see what we actually knew about this man, and quickly lost interest when they discovered that Wikipedia deemed the article worthless (well, in it's most recent incarnation, it was, honestly)? We may be destroying the only chance we’ll ever have to verify the truth about this man’s fascinating background, because a couple of inexplicably rancorous skeptics, fueled by the mockery of countless online articles and the ridiculous credulousness of the “alien truther” crowd, decided to wash their hands of the whole rotten business and wipe Boyd Bushman - a man who apparently saved untold American lives through his scientific contributions to our military defense capabilities from the RedEye missile to the stealth bomber - from the public encyclopedia entirely. It’s a conundrum. Informedskeptic (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor-in-chief relies on whether or not a subject has a Wikipedia article to determine whether or not their publication should cover them then they should be sacked because that is the express and polar opposite of the way Wikipedia works. We don't publish things here in an effort to give them credibility, we wait until subjects have received coverage elsewhere and then reflect that coverage here. We do not publish original thought or original research or original stories. We're not here to right WP:GREATWRONGS. When multiple somebodies publish his story (properly) then we can do so here. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think we'll ever publish first. Stlwart111 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Wikipedia already published an article about Boyd Bushman that was up and remained unchallenged for several years, if we're being honest here. Two feature-length documentaries and a published RS book which all revolve around interviews with Boyd Bushman, plus the additional verification of his exotic employment background and scientific achievements established by his patents, were enough to have a nice little article about him before all this hullaboo started. Maybe, in theory, he didn't merit a page to begin with. And maybe, RS editors aren't swayed by Wikipedia: I'd like to believe that. But where the rubber meets the road, this page got deleted this month because people didn't like the public debacle created by his demented "deathbed disclosure" video. And maybe, in practice, what happens here will influence future events. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Boyd Bushman article was unchallenged for years because, frankly, no one knew about it. Wikipedia is edited by everyday people, not some mysterious force. As the original AfD'er I can tell you exactly how it went down: (1) I had never heard of Boyd Bushman before, (2) as part of my IRL research activities I monitor the blogs and message boards for a variety of hate groups and conspiracy theorists (essentially "the cultic milieu" - a famous term coined by the sociologist Colin Campbell) - I first learned about Bushman through a series of posts to Above Top Secret, (3) I immediately checked to see if he had a WP article, (4) seeing he had an article I then checked the references, (5) seeing the references were all non-RS I nominated it for deletion. It was all pretty routine. A-B-C-1-2-3. All the best - BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: Significant historical contributions - Reading through the WP:BIO (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field) I realized that we've missed something else: proof of Bushman's scientific notability through the many subsequent patents that cite his earlier patents as prior art embodiments. Just as a scientific paper gains notability as academic authors cite their papers when it contributes to future advancements, good patents lead to a growing body of patents based on that work. And frequently, those scientists have no direct connection to the author of the patents that led to their own advancements. I saw a number of cases like this in Bushman's patent record on Google Patents. It proves that Bushman made significant contribution to the historical record of technological progress in the aerospace industry - his seminal work on stealth technology is one key example where I noticed a lineage of developments based on his original patent. Informedskeptic (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that too Informedskeptic, thanks for sharing this. Perhaps there are several articles on stealth technology which references one of the inventions which built upon one or several of Boyd's patents. --HafizHanif (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And when someone publishes such an analysis of his patents in a reliable source, drawing the same conclusions you have, let us know. Stlwart111 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I’m making is simply this: forward citations are an established mainstream method of measuring the significance of patents, just like RS guidelines at Wikipedia establish the importance or “notability” of a topic. If this is in question, I’ve cited numerous RS’s below to demonstrate the point. This seems to bear directly on this statement in the WP:ANYBIO guideline, which states:
“Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.”
“Qualitatively similar results are obtained when patents are weighed by citations, although citation-weighing generally increases the importance of USPTO patents. This is expected since citations proxy for patent quality and patent quality may to some extent be observed by the acquiring firm (Hall et al., 2005).”
https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~sb135/bio/RP_Final.pdf
“Since the landmark work of Trajtenberg (1990), citation-weighed patent indexes have been shown to be strongly correlated with the social value of innovations (Trajtenberg, 1990), peer evaluation of their technical importance (Albertet al., 1991), renewal decisions (Harhoff et al., 1999; Thomas, 1999), and firm value (Belenzon, 2009; Bloom and Van Reenen, 2002; Deng et al., 1999; Hall et al., 2005; Hirschey and Richardson, 2004). Hall et al. (2005), in particular, find that investors are able to accurately forecast the expected value of patented inventions, as it is later confirmed by future citations.”
https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~sb135/bio/RP_Final.pdf
“The quantitative analysis of this paper is conducted in a Tobin’s q framework. A firm’s knowledge assets are modeled as being accumulated in a continuously ongoing innovative process in which R&D expenditures reflect innovative input, patents record the successful innovations that can be appropriated by the firm, and citations received by the firm’s patents (forward citations) measure the relative “importance” of the patents.”
“A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations”
http://www.tau.ac.il/~manuel/pdfs/a%20penny%20for%20your%20quotes.pdf
“For both forward and backward citations, the measures fall into three categories: importance measures are based on the number of citations made or received; distance measures relate to the proximity or remoteness of the cited or citing patents, across both time and technology space; and originality or generality measures relate to the dispersion of citations made or received across different areas of technology space.”
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer98/jaffe_summer98.html
"Number of citations received in 5 year time after publication. Corrected for patent equivalents. More citations received => more valuable patent."
“Measuring patent quality and radicalness: new indicators,” OECD Directorate for Science Technology and Industry, Economic Analysis and Statistics, “The Output of R&D activities: Harnessing the Power of Patents Data,” 2012
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/ISG/patents/documents/Squicciarini_IPTS_25May2012.pdf
And many of Bushman's patents are cited in numerous and diverse patents by some of the world's leading innovators: it’s all listed on the "Referenced by" section of each of his patents, which are publicly available from the USPTO and Google Patents. For example, his "Apparatus powered using laser supplied energy" (which is actually a pulse-detonation laser rocket that burns the air for fuel - Lockheed likes to use droll names on its patents), has 13 forward citations, including a pulsed detonation engine by McDonnell Douglas and a Laser augmented turbojet propulsion system by Northrop Grumman. Nearly all of Bushman's patents exhibit this kind of pedigree, which is available for anyone to see and interpret for themselves. And by the WP:BASIC guideline, which states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject," then I don't see why a Boyd Bushman Wikipedia page couldn't say something like "Boyd Bushman's patents for Lockheed have subsequently been cited on patents for Boeing[46], The United States Air Force[47], Carnegie Mellon University[48], General Electric[49], and many other leading innovators in industry and academia[50][51][52].
I'd also like to mention that I found confirmation of his employment at General Dynamics on some of his patents, which were originally assigned to General Dynamics in 1991, then tranferred to Lockheed in August of 1993[53][54], presumably when he switched jobs.
And I also discovered that his high-voltage stealth radar absorption patent was cited a year later in another Lockheed patent by the unremarkable name of "Vehicle."[55] Which is actually some weird new kind of next gen stealth fighter that makes the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk look like a Tonka toy. Seriously, take a look at that thing - it looks like something George Lucas would come up with. Informedskeptic (talk)
  • I'll check that out, thanks. I thought the spirit of the notability guidelines was to demonstrate that someone is notable in their field, per the "Average Teacher" test. I was also thinking we could use some help for an expert in the area of inventors/scientists/etc., since they're an unusual case. I found this thingamabob somewhere along the way but I don't know how to use it: Template:expert-subject Any help on that? Gracias! Informedskeptic (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5542247
  2. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5929732
  3. ^ http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Former-Lockheed-Martin-engineer-from-Texas-I-met-5858753.php
  4. ^ http://www.inquisitr.com/1569327/ufos-are-real-top-area-51-scientist-reveals-in-deathbed-video-18-aliens-work-for-u-s-govt/
  5. ^ http://www.hngn.com/articles/47843/20141031/longtime-government-scientist-claims-ufos-are-real-in-death-bed-confession.htm
  6. ^ http://article.wn.com/view/2014/11/01/Boyd_Bushman_UFO_Video_From_Lockheed_Martin_Scientist_Debunk/
  7. ^ http://www.amazon.com/From-Here-Andromeda-Robert-Thurman/dp/B000W2119A
  8. ^ http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?Itemid=53&id=96&option=com_content&task=view
  9. ^ http://www.randomhouse.com/book/31177/the-hunt-for-zero-point-by-nick-cook
  10. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cook
  11. ^ http://www.janes-defence-weekly.com/
  12. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5542247
  13. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5420588
  14. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5929732
  15. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5511044
  16. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
  17. ^ http://vielewelten.at/pdf_en/the%20hunt%20for%20zero%20point.pdf
  18. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_G._Ross
  19. ^ http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Former-Lockheed-Martin-engineer-from-Texas-I-met-5858753.php
  20. ^ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/claims-of-a-deathbed-confession-about-ufos-propel-a-video-with-more-questions-than-answers/
  21. ^ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/10/31/ufos-over-tucson-part-of-viral-debate/18246859/
  22. ^ http://www.tvqc.com/2014/10/boyd-bushman-ingenieur-lockheed-martin-parle-dovnis-mort/
  23. ^ http://www.dailydot.com/lol/ufo-truthers-freak-out-boyd-bushman-confession
  24. ^ http://www.newstalkflorida.com/former-area-51-scientist-says-aliens-are-real/
  25. ^ http://www.inquisitr.com/1569327/ufos-are-real-top-area-51-scientist-reveals-in-deathbed-video-18-aliens-work-for-u-s-govt/
  26. ^ http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/offbeat/297984-area-51-scientist-boyd-bushman-makes-amazing-deathbed-confession-about-aliens.html
  27. ^ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/claims-of-a-deathbed-confession-about-ufos-propel-a-video-with-more-questions-than-answers/
  28. ^ https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-05.htm
  29. ^ http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB87201.pdf
  30. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cook
  31. ^ http://www.janes-defence-weekly.com/
  32. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3477398/
  33. ^ http://vielewelten.at/pdf_en/the%20hunt%20for%20zero%20point.pdf
  34. ^ http://www.newstalkflorida.com/former-area-51-scientist-says-aliens-are-real/
  35. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cook
  36. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20130608005034/http:/boydbushman.com/Home.php
  37. ^ http://www.azjournal.com/2014/08/12/boyd-bushman/
  38. ^ http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Former-Lockheed-Martin-engineer-from-Texas-I-met-5858753.php
  39. ^ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/claims-of-a-deathbed-confession-about-ufos-propel-a-video-with-more-questions-than-answers/
  40. ^ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2014/10/31/ufos-over-tucson-part-of-viral-debate/18246859/
  41. ^ http://www.tvqc.com/2014/10/boyd-bushman-ingenieur-lockheed-martin-parle-dovnis-mort/
  42. ^ http://www.dailydot.com/lol/ufo-truthers-freak-out-boyd-bushman-confession
  43. ^ http://www.newstalkflorida.com/former-area-51-scientist-says-aliens-are-real/
  44. ^ http://www.inquisitr.com/1569327/ufos-are-real-top-area-51-scientist-reveals-in-deathbed-video-18-aliens-work-for-u-s-govt/
  45. ^ http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/offbeat/297984-area-51-scientist-boyd-bushman-makes-amazing-deathbed-confession-about-aliens.html
  46. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5999652#forward-citations
  47. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5999652#forward-citations
  48. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5543917#forward-citations
  49. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5637946#forward-citations
  50. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5452089#forward-citations
  51. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5430448#forward-citations
  52. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5982180#forward-citations
  53. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5430448#legal-events
  54. ^ https://www.google.com/patents/US5511044#legal-events
  55. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US5420588#forward-citations
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Constantinos Mintikkis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He is playing in a fully professional league, Cypriot First Division, as you can see in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. [21]. Xaris333 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a PROD, is this not available for immediate restoration at WP:REFUND? Let me know if I'm missing something. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
J⚛e, you're not missing anything - feel free to use your magical powers to do what should be done. Stlwart111 09:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It had already been restored for over five hours before your comment. —Cryptic 11:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason_Brown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The formal discussion for DRV is at WT:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mercedesstonewall/Mason Brown.  The result was that the closer declined to revise the close.  Questions for this DRV include, "Is Userfy a valid result for an MfD for a page in userspace?"  A search on "User:Mason Brown" shows three such articles now in userspace.  I request that the MfD be revised to show that community consensus is to userfy to my userspace, although another reasonable outcome is to take down the closing and relist. Unscintillating (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it appears that it already has been userfied to your userspace and the close suggest that would happen it you were explicit about your meaning. Seems to be splitting hairs about precise wordings, meanings etc. is there really nothing better to do? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get help, man - Unscintillating was purposedly vague in the MfD, saying he wanted the userspace draft "userfied" but not to his userspace and failed to provide a target. The MfD was closed as delete, with a note that if Unscintillating wanting it userfied to their userspace, they could request it to me or WP:REFUND. They did. It has been userfied to their userspace. Unscintillating has been trying to achieve god knows what by discussing this non-issue at many, many venues and doesn't seem to be seeking anything other than wasting time. I recommend and speedy close and would not object to sancions against Unscintillating for disruption. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  22:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: A few minutes ago you modified the MfD closing to say that I had requested userfication after the closing, and you repeat the assertion here.  Please provide a diff of what you say is my request.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to encourage you to continue this shit. Either you wanted in your userspace, in which case it is done and you need to move on, or you did not want it in your userspace and thus it can just be deleted. It was entirey copyvio anyways and should've been trashed right away as such. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State your evidence of copyvio.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text I removed from the draft today was 80%+ copied straight from the source I gave in the ES. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not comprehensible. Where, if anywhere, is the draft currently located, and where does Unscintillating want it? If it's already there there's nothing to talk about, and if it's not already there is there a reason it shouldn't be? Discussion of the past history of the MfD is not of importance at this stage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Honour_(film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The plot summary for this film was added to IMDb by "anonymous" - then someone speedily deleted this wikipedia page for copyright infringement of the imdb anonymous comment, which was taken from wikipedia in the first place. The film itself and the other information on the page are notable and valid, so the page should not have been deleted. Fubar100 (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is clear is that, under wikipedia's own rules, if a page contains material other than the disputed copyrighted material, it should not be deleted: instead, flagged for copyright or edited to remove copyrighted parts. It's also stated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion under Non-Criteria no.10, that if it is unsure where the material came from first, it is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Whatever your view of this plot summary- which is not quoted verbatim, whoever wrote it in imdb or wikipedia- the action should never be to delete a page full of other, non-copyright or public domain information. 104.174.107.13 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this article. If you are unsure about the originality of the plot summary - hardly the most serious copyright issue - then I'll be happy to edit it and make changes as necessary. Deleting an article with good free content is not what wikipedia is for. Fubar100 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article included the entire first paragraph from this Imdb page just with different punctuation, and three brief attributed and legit quotes from newspapers concerning the film's reception. Therefore I chose to delete it because the infringing content was much larger than the remaining text. I could restore it though in the draft space without the infringing text so it can be fleshed out. By the way, all copyright issues are taken very seriously at Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - look, it's unambiguous copyright infringement, which is there from edit 1. For those looking to re-write the article from scratch, the sources are [22] [23] and [24]. For those looking to infringe the copyrighted text again, it'll just get deleted again. A discussion here can't decide to ignore Wikipedia's licensing; there's nothing to discuss on whether or not we should engage in blatant copyright infringement. WilyD 10:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Cryptic saying above that there is only one revision in the history of the deleted page? If so there would be nothing to restore that isn't a copyvio. On the other hand if the info at IMDb was copied from Wikipedia, then copyvio doesn't apply. It seems like we have no way to be sure, though. Ivanvector (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are four: AdrianSaunders creates the article; he adds File:Honour-Poster.jpg; Filedelinkerbot removes it; and LowLevel73 tags the article for speedy deletion. We can restore the article then revision-delete the article text, though, so attribution for the non-infringing sentence in the Reception section is preserved. On a second look, though, it seems clear to me that imdb, not Wikipedia, was the source; it's far more likely that the text there was changed to complete sentences than it was deliberately fragmented while being copied from here. —Cryptic 22:56, 11 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The page had 4 revisions all of which contained the text from ImDb. So you're right, to restore the article we would first have to recreate what does look like a copyvio. All in all it would be better to rewrite the article from scratch. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Thanks for clarifying. Ivanvector (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trouts for whacking are thataway. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Pornographic video game – As in the AfD, opinions are divided, and there is no consensus for any outcome. The "keep" closure is therefore retained by default. The proposed alternative, a relisting, can be effected by renominating the article for deletion after an appropriate time if talk page discussions about a possible merger or redirection prove unfruitful. –  Sandstein  21:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pornographic video game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer of this discussion, Philg88, reasoned that the article could be expanded on the weight of sources discussed in the AfD. I contacted Phil to point out that several editors were discussing problems with the suitability of those sources. I offered that I disagreed with his evaluation of the consensus but I am involved, so I suggested either relisting or asking another admin to review the close. Phil responded by explaining WP:NOTAVOTE but I think that his evaluation of the validity of the keep arguments was flawed. The sources in the article and the new ones at the AfD do not establish that multiple sources use this term or related terms ("adult" or "erotic" video games) to refer to something sufficiently different from what we discuss at sex and nudity in video games for us to have a separate article about it, for varying reasons (see the AfD for more details). He suggested I should go to DRV if I still disagreed, so here we are. I propose to relist to discuss the proper redirect target. Ivanvector (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. Hi. There are two "keep" verdicts, two "delete" verdicts (no counting the nominator) and two "redirect" verdicts. ("Redirect" means to delete and create a redirect instead, unless there are licensing concerns that needs an article history.) All participant cite Wikipedia policies, although not all of them have a blue hyperlink. (Notability is definitely a valid policy.) Hence, it is blatantly wrong to say there was consensus in favor of keeping. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer The number of !votes is not the metric used to close AfD discussions per WP:NOTAVOTE. There was not a consensus to delete, which, discounting "no consensus" leaves us with possible "keep" or "redirect" outcomes. As I explained in my closing comments, there is a clear distinction between "pornographic" and "sex and nudity" while "Eroge" is a term specific to Japanese culture. That means that there was no suitable redirect available, indicating that the correct close was "keep" based on the availability of reliable sources.  Philg88 talk 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between "pornographic" and "sex and nudity" of course, but our sex and nudity in video games article nearly exclusively discusses video games which feature adult/erotic/pornographic themes as primary elements of the game, not just games in which there is sex or nudity. There was rough consensus against keeping, and there was ongoing discussion about the redirect target that should have been allowed to conclude. Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Philg88. You explained as much in your closing comment but the fact remains that it is not the prevailing consensus. In addition, not only I do not see a straw vote there, I see heated discussion. Mentioning the irrelevant WP:NOTVOTE essay was very inappropriate. In effect, your closure has become a supervote. Finally, it is inappropriate to argue with the "reliable sources" rationale when the verifiability of the sources are already contested. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't really care what happens to the page; WP is filled to overflowing with garbage articles like that about topics that people insist really exist and are notable, and no amount of project-space discussions will stem the tide. I tried to fix the garbage article that was there before by making it into the sex and nudity article. Someone else then swooped in and added to the redirect and now we just have two garbage articles.
That being said, the closure was not remotely related to the discussion I was in. The fact that 'there is a clear distinction between "pornographic" and "sex and nudity" ' has nothing to do with the discussion at all. But seriously, if you are somehow implying that "sex and nudity" as a broad topic does not include pornography, I would be very interested to see the pornography that you are familiar with. If pornography doesn't have sex or nudity that is some seriously niche stuff.
The main glaring flaw in that logic is, just like some of the defenders of the article, you are confusing the key distinction between the two titles. "Sex and nudity in video games" can be easily proven, because "sex and nudity" is an easily recognized and remarked upon thing, and "video games" are a separate recognizable thing. A "pornographic video game" is a complex and overly specific entity, which does not exist as far as the GNG is concerned. This article is not about "pornography" in/as a video game, and the other article is not about "sex and nudity video games". That title was chosen for that reason, and for that reason it can easily meet GNG, even though they cover the exact same topic. I would have said as much in the AfD if you hadn't voted with your sysop card. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist. The two redirects and three deletes (including the nomination) outweigh the two keeps, so that's a consensus that the subject does not deserve its own article – the difference between redirect and delete is those supporting redirect have identified a suitable target, which may not be clear at the start so !votes start as delete but switch to redirect. But they agree on the main question being asked, that this does this deserve its own article. None of the arguments seems ill-founded and so to be disregarded.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The right outcome is probably to put in a disambiguation page that points at sex and nudity in video games and eroge. The outcome clearly isn't going to be "delete", which makes Philg88's close understandable in context even though I'd have preferred "no consensus". We could also simply have a discussion on the talk page about the redirect/disambiguation issue, so I'm not 100% sure that it's necessary to disturb the close.—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good analysis and I wouldn't be opposed to that. However, I would prefer in that case that the close be overturned to "no consensus", otherwise editors will join the discussion insisting on keeping the page as-is based on the AfD result. Ivanvector (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer was in a no win situation. The closer of this DRV will have the same problem. Szzuk (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. We have directives for closing no-win situations: First, they are relisted to prove they are indeed no-win. Then, a no-win discussion is closed as "no-win" not "keep". (Except the official phrase declaring a no-win closure is "No consensus".) So, per your own reason, I can't see how you endorse this closure. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only partly accurate, Phil. A discussion which does not produce a consensus is one where there is no agreement on what to do with the article so we do nothing by default, and that looks like a keep because we couldn't agree to do anything else. That is fundamentally different than a discussion which produces a clear consensus to keep - that is a community agreement to endorse the article subject. Closing as "keep" and closing as "no consensus" are not in any way equal. There was no clear agreement in this AfD and it should have been closed "no consensus" to reflect that, or relisted if you thought further discussion would develop a consensus, but "keep" should not have been a conclusion available to you here. Other editors here are correct that talk of merging/redirecting/etc. can and should proceed on the article talk page but an incorrect close here will taint any future discussion ("I propose a merger" ... "you can't, AfD said keep"). Ivanvector (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said No win not No consensus for a quite deliberate reason. The reason being - AFd discussions involving sexual content often result in a mess [no pun intended]. The close was ok given the difficulty of the topic, hence my endorse. Szzuk (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-win discussions are closed with a "No consensus" verdict (because there is no prevailing consensus). Heated debates are not restricted to sexual contents. I've seen worst discussions about video games, films, books, computer software (special Apple software), mascots, fashion and crime. There was a categorically nasty discussion about the role of women characters in video games that even reading it renders me catatonic. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've explained my meaning behind usage of the term No win. It is unhelpful for you to continue to equate no win and no consensus - it appears you're trying to put words in my mouth. Szzuk (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sunil Kumar Verma (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I confirm that I first tried discussing the matter with the admin (Crisco_1492) who deleted the article in AfD.

Sir Crisco_1492 mentioned to me during this discussion that he is not well versed with such a technology and has no knowledge and background in the subject area of Sunil Kumar Verma. I am now requesting this deletion review

I present my reasons to recommending to Overturn or Allow recreation of the article on Sunil Kumar Verma due to following:

In the words of the Union Minister of State for Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India [1]: The contribution of Dr S K Verma for Indian Science is as follows: I quote -

"In March 2001, Verma and Singh invented the “Universal primer technology” to address the question pertaining to establishment of the identity of any unknown biological sample and assign it to its known species source (Verma and Singh, US and PCT Patent application No: PCT/IN01/00055, First Filling Date: 28/03/2001; Priority date: 28/03/2001) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] .

This technology worked across large range of animal species in a universal manner and was able to detect any of the endangered species of India (and that of entire world indeed), from birds to fishes to mammals to provide “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence on species identity in the court of law. Patent related to this invention was filed in several countries and the research papers were published in various journals. This technique of CSIR-CCMB revalorized the arena of Wildlife Forensics. It is currently being used routinely in LaCONES of CSIR-CCMB to provide the wildlife forensics services to the Nation in the cases pertaining to wildlife crime."

The above report was presented by Union Minister of State for Science and Technology and Ministry of Earth Sciences Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply in Lok Sabha (Indian Parliament) on 06-August-2014 [7]

The discovery of Verma and Singh (Lalji Singh) has since revolutionized the arena of Wildlife Forensics in India. You can refer to some of the media clippings here about his discovery. All these clippings cite Verma and Singh's name as inventor of this [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

Other than the above, the research done by Verma and colleagues led to the re-discovery of Pygmy Hog, an endangered species of India (see Reference 5 on List of mammals of India article) [19] .

SK Verma received many Honours and Awards of National Importance for his outstanding contribution to Science such as CSIR Technology Award for Life Sciences in 2008 (Jointly conferred to Verma & Lalji Singh)[20] [21]; Societal Invention Award 2009 (Jointly conferred to Verma and Lalji Singh) by National Research Development Corporation, a prestigious organization of India [22]; and BioAsia Innovation Award 2009 by BioAsia [23]. Verma also received several prestigious fellowships and scholarships, mentioning a few - Fellow of Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology Berlin 2010-13; Scholarship of Commonwealth Commission, UK. Dr Verma is also serving as 'Research Ambassador of DAAD [24] (German Academic Exchange) to promote bidirectional research between India and Germany. Only few (probably 10) Scientists from India received this honor so far, Verma is one of them.

Other than this, S K Verma has done his Ph.D. from the University of Oxford, UK. Very few scholars from India has done doctoral degree from Oxford so far and these can be counted on fingers.

I agree that awards such as CSIR Technology Award is not a Nobel Prize, but it is one of the top award in India for Science and Technology inventions. Only one such award is announced every year in the field of Life Science. In the 40 years history of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) only 4 such awards have been given to any CCMB scientist and 4th one was jointly given to Verma and Singh. Since most of the award systems the world over, work on a regional basis, notability of a person also has to be considered on a national basis.

I assume that the above meets the notability on WP:ANYBIO for S K Verma as a part of WikiProject India hence I recommend for the Overturn or Allow recreation of the article on Sunil Kumar Verma deleted in AfD. Educationtemple (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "CSIR-Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CSIR-CCMB) had developed DNA barcoding technology". Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology.
  2. ^ "US Patent No 7141364: Verma and Singh 2001".
  3. ^ "Australia Patent AU2001258719 - verma & Singh".
  4. ^ "Indian Inventors Discover Wildlife Identification Universal Primer". HighBeamResearch.
  5. ^ "Universal primers for wildlife identification: WO 2002077278 A1".
  6. ^ "UNIVERSAL PRIMERS FOR WILDLIFE IDENTIFICATION". World Intellactual Property Organization.
  7. ^ "CSIR-Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CSIR-CCMB) had developed DNA barcoding technology". Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Science & Technology.
  8. ^ "It's only a leopard: lab finding". The Hindu.
  9. ^ "DNA tests : A breakthrough for wildlife forensics". Wildlife Trust of India.
  10. ^ "CCMB develops DNA test to identify animal species". The Hindu: Business Line.
  11. ^ "CCMB develops wildlife forensic test". The Times of India.
  12. ^ "Checking wildlife crimes with DNA tests". The Times of India.
  13. ^ "Was it a leopard or panther slinking by?: New DNA tool helps scientists identify wildlife species". The Christian Science Monitor.
  14. ^ "Indian genetic test helps combat wildlife crimes". SciDevNet.
  15. ^ "Saving species the hi-tech way". The Tribune.
  16. ^ "CSIR award for CCMB". The Hindu.
  17. ^ "CCMB bags CSIR technology award for life sciences 2008". WebIndia123.
  18. ^ "CSIR Technology Awards- 2008". Department of Science and Technology, Government of India.
  19. ^ "The pygmy hog is a unique genus: 19th century taxonomists got it right first time round". doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2007.08.007. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  20. ^ "CSIR award for CCMB". The Hindu.
  21. ^ "CCMB bags CSIR technology award for life sciences2008". WebIndia123.
  22. ^ "NRDC Awards 2009".
  23. ^ "BioAsia Innovation Awards 2009".
  24. ^ "List of DAAD Research Ambassadors in India".
  • Endorse. Personally, I'd have relisted the discussion at that point, but I also think that the closing admin's call was reasonable and defensible. No obvious errors here that would justify overturning the decision. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; allow recreation. Maybe the discussion should have been relisted but it's eight months old now. The arguments in favour of keeping were not strong, but new editor Educationtemple seems to have new information justifying recreation. I'd suggest userfying the deleted article so that Educationtemple can work on it and then submit it to AfC for review, rather than recreating in place. That would solve attribution issues as well. Ivanvector (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'll note here that the closing admin Crisco 1492 has advised Educationtemple to seek assistance from WikiProject Computational Biology, and I'd like to echo the recommendation. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because it was a reasonable close in the light of the discussion but I'm pleased that people here are seeing a possible way of developing the article. My own view (and this is not a matter for DRV) is that it might be better in the first instance to produce an article on the technique of universal primer technology with sections for the people involved and only later spin out biographies as separate articles if that became appropriate. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That article may already exist: DNA barcoding - I saw it suggested somewhere that this was the resulting technology. We currently have Universal primer as a redirect to Primer (molecular biology), perhaps it could be expanded into an article, or the target article expanded. This is far from my area of expertise. Ivanvector (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree Crisco 1492. Please allow recreation, I would be happy to work on article. Educationtemple (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Richard Howe (officer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A rather obvious sock drawer involving Bristolbottom has just been cleared out. Its sole purpose seems to have been to AfD biogs of Bedford Modern School alumni. Although many went to AfD, I can only see two that were actually deleted.

I would like these two deletions reviewed, mostly on the grounds of WP:DENY.

I'm not familiar with these articles, couldn't see them and took no part in their AfDs. At first sight, I'm inclined to endorse deletion of Herbert Roff Newton but I think that there's a case to be made for keeping Richard Howe as a MC holder and also senior on the escape committee at Colditz.

Some discussion at User_talk:Joe_Decker#Bedford_Modern_School.2C_sockpuppets_and_WP:DRV

Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Richard Howe (officer) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kenneth Sandford (5 June 2003). Mark of the Lion ePub. Penguin Books Limited. p. 278. ISBN 978-1-74228-702-7. Retrieved 2014-11-11. If any reasonable avenues for escape were left, the brilliance of Dick Howe and his helpers would have discovered and exploited them.
  • "Escape Officers – Colditz". colditzcastle.net. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2014. For over three years Dick Howe was in charge of all escaping; Colonel Guy German's choice of him was justified for with the exception of Airey Neave, all the British who escaped and made a home run did so during his term of office.
  • David Harrison (23 October 2010). "Lothario Army captain sent coded 'love letters' from Colditz". The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2014-11-11. Two of his fellow prisoners, Dick Howe and Rupert Barry, realised that if they could make the code more sophisticated they could communicate with London and pass on information they picked up from military gossip.
  • S. P. Mackenzie. Colditz Myth C. Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-19-153223-8. Retrieved 2014-11-11. Meanwhile the BBC was preparing to air the second series of Colditz, starting on 7 January 1974. As part of the publicity campaign the Radio Times had funded the first return visit to the actual castle by four ex-prisoners—Pat Reid, Dick Howe, Rupert Barry, and Jack Best—in late 1973, and had then gone on to sponsor a special 'Escape from Colditz' exhibition at the Imperial War Museum, due to open on the same day that the first episode aired.
  • Patrick Robert Reid (1953). Escape from Colditz: The Two Classic Escape Stories: The Colditz Story, and Men of Colditz in One Volume. Lippincott. Retrieved 2014-11-11. 35 pages matching Howe in this book
  • A Google book search using ["Dick howe" colditz] turns up 17 ghits, all of which are good hits with most showing WP:GNG material in the snippet.
  • Caveat.  I'm pretty sure that the death date of 1959 in the Userfied article is wrong, but I have not found either a birth or death date.
Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Overturn to redirect, (2) Boldly un-redirect, (3) Move article to Dick Howe  A non-deletion redirect was the consensus at the AfD.  The deletes argue that the topic should not have a stand-alone article, without making delete arguments.  The keeps argue that there is no policy basis for a deletion, and the arguments are consistent with covering the topic as non-notable at Laufen Six or Oflag IV-C.  And the last !voter sums up the preceding consensus as Redirect.  Since there was no merge, content organization of the encyclopedia becomes a problem, so restoring the article as proposed above is no different than a bold un-redirect subsequent to the AfD.  I'm not opposed if content contributors subsequently renew the consensus of a non-notable topic with a merge, perhaps to Laufen Six.  I have read Reid's book Escape from Colditz, so I am aware that this is an epic war story before being popularized by the television series and the board game.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC) revised 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I think the sock got this one passed us. The refs look ok so I'm not persuaded by redirect arguments. Restore and if someone wants to afd again, so be it. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Commander Herbert Roff Newton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See above for Richard Howe (officer)

Draft is at User:Joe Decker/Herbert Roff Newton

Notability would seem to depend on how significant we see the role of Deputy Lieutenant for a county. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of Android devices (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted solely because the list in its present form was "an indiscriminate collection of items that can't ever aim for completeness". No editor acknowledged the possibility that the list could be rebuilt with more rigid and strict criteria (including possibly, being limited to notable smartphones that have an article already, etc.), and divisions based on either era or shipped version. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The delete rationales is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are very weak (same with the keep rationale), but looking at the article, there is nothing salvageable, so it's better to WP:TNT and start from scratch. Endorse Deletion. Secret account 03:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It is not true that the list will forever be incomplete, because at some point in the future Android devices will be superseded and no new ones will be developed. Furthermore, that;s insufficient reason for deletion, as most lists except of defined historic events in the past or geographic subdivisions will be incomplete. A list like this doesn ot need to contain only notable products--it can be a suitable place to redirect the sub-notable. It shouldn;t contain the utterly trivial; but if it does, they can be removed. This is much better than starting from scratch. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse given the discussion it's hard to see how the closer could have closed it any other way, the solitary keep is weak regardless of the relative strength/weakness of the deletes. As a "Comparison of" it's going to be pretty useless, there is no way such a huge number of potential items could be a meaningful comparison in this form. If someone wanted to covert this into a "list of" then userfication, tidying up etc. and doing that would perhaps not unreasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I concur with 86.2.216.5 Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "at some point in the future Android devices will be superseded and no new ones will be developed" seems extremely shaky to me. This article seems unmaintainable given how many Android devices already exist. Shii (tock) 03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's not the basis of my arhument--it's really directed only at the pointlessness ofu sing thecriterion of ("never complete" The basis of my argument is that there isn othing wrong with the list which can be remedyignby some judicious deletions. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as closer I agree with DGG that incompleteness by itself is not necessarily fatal, however, that is hardly the only argument provided, at least given a broad reading of the discussion. I read some of the arguments as invoking various forms of WP:NOT, arguments about article size. I also note that LISTN provides an unusual degree of subjectivity with respect to what list topics the community does and does not consider encyclopedic and notable. Had I been contributing my own personal view, I might have suggested that a better approach would be to break this list down into a variety of articles based on device type (List of Android smartphones, List of android tablets, etc.), which might have addressed the article size concern and left the resulting articles to appear more maintainable. I also would imagine that there are actually sources that compare android phones v. one another, whereas I imagine there are very few sources which compare Android smart phones vs. Android game consoles, if my imagination should happen to be correct here, the "by device type" split would result in topics which more cleanly met the usual indications of list notability. Nothing in my close precludes this outcome, as far as I'm concerned. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was closed the only way it really could have been given both number and strength of arguments. Besides, the very concept of an article that aims to compare over 19,000 distinct devices, with more appearing every day, is patently silly. And then there's the factor that many of them are patently incomparable: How does one meaningfully compare a gaming tablet, a smart refridgerator, and a baby monitor? Answer: you don't, and work on something less ridiculous like articles for the many notable devices that currently have none. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  [25] states that this article has had
Total number of edits 2,787
Total number of distinct authors 1,313
Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist That was a horrible discussion and I can't find a meaningful policy-based argument. A lot of effort by a lot of people was put into that article. It would be a shame to delete it because of what (IMO) comes down to a !vote rather than a policy-based discussion. This isn't indiscriminate (or at least no so clearly indiscriminate a vague WP:WAVE will do, and "we aren't consumer reports" isn't a valid argument. Sadly the keep argument is just as bogus. Given that the closer has some ideas about how to fix this, I think we should have another discussion. I'd not be shocked if that results in deletion, but after this DRV, I think we'll get a lot better arguments on both sides. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't come to DRV often, but my understanding is that it's mainly for challenging the closing admin's interpretation of consensus, fixing procedural errors, or bringing up substantial bits of new information. I.e. not because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment; The rationales given, while not very thoroughly argued, are pretty standard versions of WP:NOT and WP:SALAT. The only expression of keep was based on Android's popularity. I'm not sure what room there was for any other close unless the closer were to relist is based on his/her own distaste with the result/discussion so far. All that said, as I said my experience with DRV is marginal and it may be the case that if someone feels like a particular argument should've been more strongly argued at AfD, that counts as "new information." In that case Relist seems perfectly reasonable. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there was no other possible way that this discussion could have been closed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Siam–Burma Death Railway (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as a non-admin closure, although consensus was far from clear. There was only one !vote to redirect, which doesn't seem appropriate, since it's an implausible search term not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm not necessarily contesting the outcome; this is more of a procedural request, since I don't think consensus was clear then. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be, but it should be noted that consensus in AFD's is not solely determined by headcount. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If this had been an admin close I'd have judged it as being within discretion although I would have preferred no consensus. An advantage of a non-admin close is that the history was not deleted which is something an inexperienced admin might have done. I can't see that the close was done within the limits suggested by the WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures essay but that is more a matter of remark to the closer than a reason for overturning. Thincat (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for another week. "Referencing is not sufficient" was not a valid reason for deletion. First, the question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources, not whether the article is sufficiently referenced. Second, the sufficiency of coverage in reliable sources is a matter for AfD participants; it is not for the closer to superimpose their own judgement on top of that. If it was felt that MQS's two sources were insufficient, the appropriate response was a delete !vote. In light of PoW's keep opinion following the presentation of those sources, and the lack of any refutation of MQS's arguments and sources despite MQS pinging the delete !voters that preceded him, I think a redirect closure is on quite shaky ground. Agree with Thincat though that redirect was better than delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Deletion reason given in the close is not a reason for deletion. The article is not hopeless, though most of the content duplicates the article on the railway; the rest might well be appropriate if the film is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment – recommend proceed with partial merge  See WP:DRVPURPOSE, which states,

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  2. to seek reversal of an AfD consensus to redirect without deletion. Instead, seek consensus, on the talk page of the redirect target, to re-create the spinout.
Opining that the current search term is implausible, implies that there is a more-plausible search term.

Here is a link to the article just before it was redirected.  One of the sentences there is, "It is a fact that no words can describe the manner in which the Japanese army treated the dead and the dying."  Like the rest of the article, it has no inline citation.

What would be helpful at this point is to get the framework of the information about this documentary into a section at the target article.  If there is more to be said, a spinout can be developed by moving the article to userspace or draftspace (thus retaining attribution history).  Unscintillating (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, and trout closer. If I were closing this AfD, my first choice would have been to relist it for another week, my second would have been to call it No Consensus. If I were participating in the AfD, I might have well !voted for redirect per Shoessss, but that's sure not how I would have closed it. I'm all for finding a useful redirect, per WP:ATD-R, but the steps in that process are to first determine that there is consensus to not keep the article, and only then figure out if a redirect makes sense. I don't see any such consensus here.
As for the trouting, I'm looking at User talk:SNUGGUMS. This appears to be the third non-admin closing by this editor which was outside the guidelines of Wikipedia:Non-admin closure and had to be voided. Please either stick to non-contentious closings, or ask for a mop of your own at WP:RfA. If the community approves, then you'll have the right to make the close calls. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see no functional difference between this closing and a "No consensus" closing that added a WP:BOLD redirect as per WP:ATD-RWP:ATD-R states that the "the talk page" is the place "to reach a consensus".  WP:DRVPURPOSE states that the "talk page of the redirect target" is the place to "seek consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - one person suggested redirect, with no rationale at all. Closing it that way is clearly untenable, but it should be noted that without just headcount, redirect has nothing going for it at all in the discussion. Discussion was trending towards keep, though since I can't read Tamil I can't speak much to how convincing the keep position is. WilyD 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist but no trout. This is not clearly a BADNAC, but it's an aggressive enough call that the community, per NAC, is unlikely to accept it from an inexperienced closer. I have some sympathy for the result, however--the Tamil sources do appear to be routine event coverage and do not provide, near as I can tell, signficant coverage of the film. (I would have closed NC or relisted, myself, probably the former.) --j⚛e deckertalk 19:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cabaret (Justin Timberlake song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Even though it had been outlined how this song does not meet notability criteria per WP:NSONGS, none of the "keep" voters had rationales complying with notability criteria for songs, and thus their rationales were unconvincing. To be specific, it states Coverage of a song within the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. All but one "keep" voter completely overlooked this. There is also a note saying The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment. Aside from album reviews, this only gets brief mentions in sources. This is the part that was completely overlooked by all voters. One voter did acknowledge there were mostly album sources, but overlooked the fact that the non-album review sources only mentioned the song briefly. I told this to the non-admin who closed the discussion, but the closer stood by the decision to keep. Given the notability criteria outlined above and how Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, this should NOT have been closed as a "keep" when it clearly failed the inclusion criteria. This should be overturned to redirect, though no prejudice against deletion of article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm the non-admin who closed the article. In the discussion, all five of the respondents favored keeping the article and there was no support for a redirect. The various arguments for keeping the article included the fact that it had charted (the highest being #18 on the US R&B Songs), that it had a few sources that were not album reviews and that it was a legitimate fork containing information that was not in the album article. I closed it as keep do to the strong consensus toward that outcome and because some valid justification had been given for not deleting or redirecting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could simply have been renominated in a month or so. It's much simpler than coming here. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DGG is correct, sometimes I think it's better to come here though, since part of the decision here should/could be of help to a closer for future reference. In this case it's going to pretty difficult to close an xfd where everyone bar the nominator says keep, so the renominate later path seems the best way to go. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with leave to renominate at AfD. The DRV rationale is pretty much "I was right; the keep !voters were wrong". And you probably were right. But the application of notability guidelines is done through consensus, especially as they are guidelines and not policy. An AfD is not an argument between two sides in which the closing (non)admin adjudicates a winner by reference to a rigid set of guidelines. Rather, it is a consensus-building exercise in which at least a "rough consensus" is required to delete an article where there is no overriding policy (as opposed to guideline) imperative. Guidelines guide that consensus-building process but don't necessarily control it. And that's especially the case for the minor guidelines like WP:NSONG (WP:GNG, on the other hand, is so entrenched now that it is pretty much a policy). As DGG says, renomination is likely to be a more fruitful course here. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is the idea of renominating for deletion, but WP:ONLYGUIDELINE isn't a good argument for deletion discussions as it overlooks the insight and value that guidelines bring. Even if guidelines and policies are separate things, WP:ONLYGUIDELINE basically comes off as an unconvincing excuse to disregard guidelines. Guidelines do exist for a reason, so it is ideal to put them to use. I can't think of any reason to keep/endorse aside from WP:ILIKEIT. There is also the policy WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which says Wikipedia isn't just a random collection of information. This is essentially an WP:INDISCRIMINATE article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse To require the notability guidelines to be used as a set of rules is, of course, in breach of the guidelines. And I find the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument very unconvincing, even bizarre, when that policy says "An article about a song should provide information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, and so on." There seems to me nothing random about this article and it meets the requirement in the same policy which says "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." The consensus at AFD was to keep the article (and it will be next time as well!). Thincat (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not using guidelines, why would they exist in the first place? They're not exactly meant to be disregarded. I was using WP:INDISCRIMINATE to say that not every subject is going to warrant its own article. WP:Consensus is defined not as a vote, but as decision-making while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the guidelines are here to help us interpret the policies wisely, and the policies are to help us build an encyclopedia. Do you not see that in this case that reducing the article to a redirect would actually go directly against the idea of providing encyclopedic context? Maybe the topic is too unimportant to deserve a place here but that criterion for inclusion was abandoned years ago. Thincat (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic ≠ notable. Notability criteria exists for a reason. WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - sources are pretty weak sauce, but they're not quite so bad that it's implausible people find it meets WP:N. With the headcount totally in favour of keeping, there's not really another way to close. Also, echoing the above, trying to work WP:INDISCRIMINATE into the overturn rationale makes it almost impossible for me to even take it seriously; when someone flings obviously inappropriate acronyms against the wall hoping they'll stick, it's a sure sign their actual argument is weak or non-existent. WilyD 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't. But when policy is in the "could go different ways" regime, headcount matters a lot more than when policy strongly favours a particular outcome. Similarly, since this really a content organisation question (article about the song, or redirect to album where the content about the song will go), rather than a content inclusion/exclusion question, headcount weighs more heavily than it would in a content inclusion/exclusion question. WilyD 07:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator is arguing here, Not only were all of the participants in the AfD wrong, but the closer was wrong too for not figuring out that everybody else was wrong. Sorry, that doesn't fly. If you really feel the AfD participants didn't understand the guidelines, bring it back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This appeal was poorly considered. The guidelines are just that, guidelines. To quite a famous movie, "Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway." To get more specific--special notability guidelines are always in tension with the general notability guideline, and both those guidelines are always properly interpreted in balance with each other and in balance with the underlying principles (neutrality, verifiability, etc.) that the guidelines are attempting to help uphold. In this case, while the claim this DRV is based on is actually disputed in the AfD discussion (last opinion), even if that opinion is strictly incorrect, participants may have, quite properly, looked at the breadth and type of sources, the specifics of what was said, and properly concluded that the underlying needs for enough coverage to write a neutral and verifiable article were met, and as a result, they may have chosen to disregard the specific guidance in NSONGS. In fact, I suspect that is precisely what happened here, even if they didn't think out the result in wiklawyering terms the way I just did. This sort of broader tension between community consideration of a specific case and community consideration of a general case is part of the reason that WP:IAR is a pillar. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add that properly balancing these is *hard*. The community balances WP:ENT against WP:GNG far differently than it balances WP:PROF against WP:GNG. Which can be frustrating if one is looking for easy answers. I wish that were better codified, but it's not, to a large extent, that balance is something that one learns through long and painful experience. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Only guidelines" is an argument to avoid per WP:ATA as it is really just little more than a poor excuse for disregarding guidelines, and underestimates the insight and value that guidelines bring. There'd be no point in guidelines if they aren't put to use. They exist for a reason, and certainly weren't made to just be ignored. I can't think of any convincing reason not to abide by specific notability criteria that was made to prevent certain articles (such as this) from being created. Endorsing this closure is inappropriate when it had been specifically outlined how it doesn't meet inclusion criteria for articles. Specific notability criterion are basically WP:GNG plus additional varying requirements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You miss one of my strongest points here. The "insight and value that guidelines bring" is in a very large part an explanation of the circumstances in which it may be possible to meet WP:NPOV and WP:V, which are policies. Notability guidelines exist in part to insure there is enough coverage to meet those policies. By suggesting that the latter policies are meaningful, I am upholding that insight and value, not disregarding it. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I didn't previously mention is the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states that not everything is going to warrant its own article. Notability criteria supplements WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Just because it is neutral and reliably sourced doesn't necessarily indicate it should be added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that invoking NOTDIRECTORY here misses the point of NOTDIRECTORY so much that I'll stop discussing this at this point. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 20:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Looks like an uncontentious keep, I'm not sure what it is doing here. Sometimes editors get caught up in guidelines. A very cursory glance at the article and the afd is all it really needs. I can't see any point in this being taken back to afd, it will end in the same way. Szzuk (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not the first time this issue has come to DRV, as I recall, and I don't believe this guideline has ever been held to trump a contrary AFD consensus. The guideline language at issue is a relatively recent addition that likely didn't receive enough scrutiny in discussions that focused mainly on chart-related criteria; it demonstrably lacks broader community support, and its more absolute language needs toning down to more correctly reflect GNG principles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2015 Asian Men's Volleyball Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

AnahitaN13 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would really help if you actually put some sort of description and reasoning with your request. I'm guessing you think the article shouldn't have been redirected, that however is an editorial matter. Your best bet is to start discussing on the talk page of the target article (here) as to if this should be split out into a standalone article or not. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I redirected the article because there were almost nothing important there. look at this. I don't think we need something like that in wikipedia, it will be great if someone actually creates the article and makes it something good. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: IFF there was no prior WP:AFD, yet, then the next step for those who disagree would be to take the page to WP:AFD, and not here to WP:DRV. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a disputed pseudo deletion by redirect without merge, take this to AfD and have it deleted or formally redirected there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • PolandballUndelete. The problem with reviews like this is that the issues are muddled. Various people are arguing whether the article is suitable or not, whether the close was done correctly or not, and/or if there are issues with one particular editor which would reflect on the article. The one thing that's clear is that there is a reasonably good consensus here to undelete the article, so that's what I'm going to do. I assume this will quickly be brought to AfD, and that's fine. At AfD, the community will be able to discuss whether the article is suitable for wikipedia, isolated from all these other peripheral questions. No prejudice against anybody bringing this back to AfD if they feel that's appropriate. – -- RoySmith (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Polandball (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In 2012 User:Russavia wrote the article Polandball. It was deleted at AfD. Never before, that I am aware of, have I seen an article deleted in large because of who wrote it or that it is a contentious article. That in itself is unacceptable and plays into Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG, particularly as the verifiability and neutrality of the text in the article was never in question.

The only valid reasoning for the deletion of the article is what Sandstein called "difficult sourcing situation of this article". The article when it was written did not have an abundance of sources, but the sources themselves were good, as demonstrated by the independent endorsement of the assessment of those sources done by Russavia by a Polish editor. The article as it appeared on this project using those sources can be seen, for example, here.

In December 2012, the article was recreated by another editor with different text and it deleted and then had WP:SALT applied to it. This meant that the only avenue to have the article undeleted was here at WP:Deletion review. Given that the deleting admin stood by his "difficult sourcing" comments in the initial AfD, the article would likely not have been undeleted at DRV.

On 19 May 2014, an editor began Draft:Polandball. He was alerted about the initial AfD, and by the looks of it, he didn't do much more work on the draft. On 4 August 2014, Tarc placed {{Db-g4}} on the draft, even though the draft as it stood was not eligible under that criteria. On 6 August 2014, an editor, who it seems identified as Russavia, used the originally deleted article that he wrote, and expanded on it. At the same time the editor who appears to be Russavia started a request at DRV. At that time, Sandstein deleted the draft, and then applied WP:SALT to the draft. The DRV was shut down due to socking, but it still doesn't solve the problem that we have.

Whilst the only valid reason for deletion at the AfD may have been true at the time, although disputed by reviewing many of the comments at the AfD and the above-mentioned assessment of sources, that reason is no longer valid. A review of the expanded text, as can be seen at tr:Kullanıcı:Russavia/Polandball, clearly shows that Polandball continues to receive coverage, even in 2014.

Here is a review of the sources as seen in the tr.wp draft, and which was present at Draft:Polandball

  1. Gazeta Wyborcza - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  2. Cooltura - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  3. Przegląd - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  4. Knowyourmeme - well known site on memes, used for one fact in the article which isn't under dispute, so discussion on whether KYM is reliable or not is basically moot in this discussion
  5. O'Reilly Verlag - this is a book published on internet memes, and the publisher is well known and regarded on topics of computers and internet.
  6. Vox Media - clearly a reliable source
  7. Hiro.pl - refer to C:User:Russavia/Sources
  8. Spider's Web - blogging platform with content provided by recognised experts in their relevant field. Used as a source on Polish Wikipedia a fair bit. An English-language equivalent is Techcrunch or Gizmodo.
  9. The cartoon isn't a source
  10. Onet.pl - Polands largest web portal, similar to msn.com.
  11. Apple Daily - a Hong Kong newspaper with Taiwanese edition and clearly a reliable source
  12. Adam Mickiewicz Institute - a government-sponsored organization funded by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of Poland. Its goal is to promote the Polish language and Polish culture abroad. The Institute operates a bilingual Polish-English portal called "Culture.pl" created in 2001. There is clearly editorial oversight.

Furthermore, in November 2013, a conference was held at the Institute of Literary Research (pl:Instytut Badań Literackich PAN); the institute is under the aegis of the Polish Academy of Science. One of the lectures given at the conference was titled "Polandball. Dlaczego memy śmieją się z polskiej historii?", which Google translate tells me means "Why memes make fun of Polish history?" The person who delivered the lecture has written an in-depth paper on the subject of Polandball and it is to be published in a scholarly journal in Poland. That Polandball was featured at a conference under the aegis of PAN dealing with Polish literature only serves to double-cement the notability of Polandball.

Other instances of Polandball in the media, include:

  1. This radio segment by Vesti FM references Polandball (as ru:Польшар). In fact, not only does it reference Polandball, but it directly references the article for Polandball on Russian Wikipedia.
  2. Polandball was seen at the Euromaiden protests, and photos of this piece was carried by Reuters and other sources.
  3. File:Juwenalia krakowskie 2013 (Artur Biernat).jpg clearly shows participants in pl:Juwenalia krakowskie carrying Polandballs.
  4. (Adding some presented further down to this list Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)) Article about Polandball's usage in the Crimea crisis.[reply]
  5. Article from France's equivalent of NPR (in French)
  6. Article from a news source with 19 million monthly readers, according to User:JTdale.
  7. German book about the meme.

There is little doubt that Polandball is notable and that the reasons for the initial deletion are no longer valid.

I have also reviewed the text provided by Russavia, and I can see no problems with it. In fact, it is, as all of Russavia's writing is, well-written and fully referenced -- similar to Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? which he wrote using sock accounts. As Russavia, as an IP, mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 6 he has released his contributions to Draft:Polandball (the expansion) under CC-Zero and it's my intent, after verifying myself the information, to include this in the Polandball article.

Polandball is #4 at Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia and it is now time to stop the MMORPG and put this clearly notable article where it belongs -- on English Wikipedia in mainspace. (tJosve05a (c) 03:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, to have appropriate attribution as per prior work on the article, and allow further quality improvement efforts by others on the article. The detailed and well-written statement by the nominator, Josve05a, is compelling. But it is also quite significant that Polandball is #4 at Wikipedia:Articles in many other languages but not on English Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Undelete, per Josve05a and as per Cirt --Kolega2357 (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, Edoderoo (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, per Josve05a –ebraminiotalk 08:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete I always felt this was deleted because of Russavia, not because of the article. If WP couldn't get him for Pricasso, at least it could whack some of his other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who closed the AfD, I'd like to emphasize that the article was deleted because I established that consensus was in favor of deletion, not because of who wrote it. However, the fact that the article was the pet project of a now-banned editor, who it appears tried to use the topic to propagate negative nationalist stereotypes, and sought to recreate the article via socks, contributed to its salting, as well as the fact that it was also a hotbed of WP:ARBEE-related nationalist conflict. I don't object to other editors recreating the article in a version that addresses the sourcing problems identified in the deleted version, as it seems is likely possible, but the topic area remains subject to discretionary sanctions, and any sort of problematic conduct, including proxy editing for banned editors, may lead to blocks or topic bans relatively quickly.  Sandstein  10:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: "proxy editing for banned editors, may lead to blocks". Since you bring up this, even though it is well know that admins etc is allowed to impose sanctions in these areas for obvious reasons, I have to ask. Is this somesort of a threat, to me, or any other user who might !vote (I know it isn't a vote) in favour of an undeletion. It kinda seems to be written to "scare" people, rather than inform. (Just my 2p's). (tJosve05a (c) 11:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:PROXYING, "Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Editors who re-post any content written by a banned editor will need to demonstrate that their actions comply with this policy.  Sandstein  11:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • (per above) "As Russavia, as an IP, mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 6 he has released his contributions to Draft:Polandball (the expansion) under CC-Zero and it's my intent, after verifying myself the information, to include this in the Polandball article." After I read the article on tr.wp, I verified the information and was satisfied it was all verifiable. In addition, it is a very well written article. On this basis, I have created sv:Polandball. And furthermore "able to show that the changes are either verifiable" (checkY) "or productive" (checkY helps the encyclopedia) "independent reasons" (checkY I hate this WP:MMORPG-shit.). Happy? (tJosve05a (c) 11:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly – you recreating the article on this basis isn't a problem in my view, if consensus here is in favor of it (even though I'm not sure that reusing content written and released under these circumstances is entirely kosher in terms of licensing and attribution). But given the previous sock- and meatpuppetry in this topic area, any subsequent edits by others may also need closer examination, hence my comment above.  Sandstein  13:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the article was deleted because the sourcing was weak, and the original closing nominator was correct to do so. Looking at the sources in the Turkish draft (and why is Russavia drafting articles in English on trwp anyway?), of those that are in English, they only mention Polandball in passing. I do not feel that they represent significant coverage, and I don't see that Polandball is getting any better coverage now than it was back then. I will note that I can't read the Polish or German articles, so that coverage may be more significant. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Undelete, personal vendettas should never come in the way of building the encyclopedia..I have seen many times a few admins including sandstein who have deleted articles only because it was created by a banned user, content trumps bans, let that be known..Polandball is very notable, i frequent forum boards, it gets discussed quite a lot..--Stemoc 12:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Encyclopaedic content should come before petty vendettas, Jimbo style crude politics, and threatening behaviour from trusted users towards each other. Embarrassing. -- (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Encyclopaedic, per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comment to the closing administrator, it is surprising to see so many editors who have relatively few edits on this Wikipedia appear here in so short a time to express the same opinion. The closer may want to consider the possibility of canvassing.  Sandstein  13:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to potentially discriminating against !votes here from contributors with "relatively few edits on this Wikipedia", presumably a comment against those known best for their Commons contributions, it is worth noting that Russavia has made more edits on this project than Sandstein, as have I. I believe this is an irrelevant tangent to the issue of whether this is encyclopaedic content or not, so I hope that it has no influence on the outcome of this DR. -- (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing administrator may wish to consider the poisoning the well effect that Sandstein's threats outside of this discussion have, along with their apparent inability to walk away from Russavia's case and leave this to someone with no apparent axe to grind on the matter. Certainly nobody, including myself, would want to have an annoyed Sandstein on their backs looking for possible reasons to use their powers against you. Comments such as "any subsequent edits by others may also need closer examination" make for a hostile environment. (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing adminstrator may also wish to consider the poisioning the well effect that 's comments towards Sandstein and assignment of motives to them, etc. may have. I don't think the comments being made here by Sandstein are necessarily helpful, but your comment matches those and more. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: As User:Josve05a said at the beginning, the sources were, for the most part, reliable. A few months ago, I started a userspace draft based upon the Simple English Wikipedia version and posted about it in the WikiProject Internet culture talk page, which led to a lengthy discussion on my talk page about Polandball that discussed, among other things, the sourcing of this page. Beliefs can change about what is and isn't worthy of an article, so the results that AfD two and a half years ago could very possibly be different from how they are now. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: per Josve05a and Cirt. INeverCry 20:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and let a new generation of editors work on any problems the article had back in 2012. If it exists on other Wikipedia's it is illogical to have its existence on the English-language Wikipedia forbidden. To have it 4th [26] on the list of recommended articles that are said "should be started immediately", yet to be unable to start it, is unsustainable. The AfD seemed to have been unusually heated, and unusually personal. To have the perception that personal vendettas could have been involved is not unreasonable. Delete votes were made by editors involved in the Eastern European Mailing List scandal - did Sandstein include them amongst the "editors who have block log entries for problematic conduct with respect to Eastern Europe" whose votes he said he discounted? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Regardless of whether there was a rational basis for deletion earlier, enough usable references have now been presented. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete: To let this vendetta have such a direct impact on article content is a bad idea, and based on the judgment of our colleagues on foreign-language Wikipedias (some of which even granting DYKs to their equivalent Polandball articles), the topic is clearly an encyclopedic one. When everybody except for the English Wikipedia is accepting of this article, you know there's something strange going on. --benlisquareTCE 05:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt draftspace  With the attribution problems, including the history here, history from a banned user, and history from other Wikipedia's, it is less clear how to proceed on the details.  There is no need to unsalt mainspace before there is an article at draftspace.  There is WP:NPASR when a mainspace article exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - Arguements that the sources were insufficient were dodgy the first time, and would be pretty laughable now. Similarly, applying a strict headcount when delete was relying on bogus "it's an attackpage" and "sources aren't English" was very dodgy in the first close. Ultimately, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND applies both ways. WilyD 10:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and keep deleted. This is a racist pet project of Russavia's, the sourcing amounts to trivial mentions and knowyourmeme.com-style unreliable sources. Go find some way to host it on Commons, its right up their alley. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not abuse words with your own personal definitions. Explain how the page is racist, while keeping in mind that, one, the article is not about Poland, and two, Poles are an ethnic group and not a race. This is precisely what I mean by personal vendettas ruining the community. --benlisquareTCE 10:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is the case (and I'm not sure where the evidence pointing to Russavia being a racist actually is), then may I remind everyone that per WP:PILLAR, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that includes racists, pedophiles, murderers, communists, anti-communists, blacks, whites, Jews, non-Jews, pro-abortionists, and anti-abortionists. If there is anything to argue about a person, it should be their conduct on Wikipedia, and not what kind of person they are. If Russavia has broken rules on Wikipedia, argue that; crying that Russavia is a "racist" is a nonsensical ad hominem. --benlisquareTCE 10:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target of my comment is not unclear; the word "racism" also covers ethnic slurs and stereotypes, and all this worthless article has ever been about is the advancement of an obscure, racist in-joke. I have no knowledge of whether the article originator is racist, and do not at this point really care. I do not interact with IP editors in the context of controversial topics areas, so the likely identity-obscuring person behind it is instructed to not ping me again on this matter. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if this is just promoting the advancement of racism, then what about Ku Klux Klan, Blackface, or freaking Ethnic joke? Polandball's in the same vein as these (albeit less extreme than the first), and after all, we're an encyclopedia. If there's good sources (as there are for this one), the content doesn't matter beyond whether or not it's encyclopedic, which is generally proven by the aforementioned sources. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction isn't difficult: racist topics are ok, but not racist articles aren't. The deleted revisions at both Polandball and Draft:Polandball were incorrigibly the latter. Keep deleted. Unsalting draftspace might be worth trying, but I sure don't want to be the poor guy who has to police it for forever. —Cryptic 18:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So issues with one version of an article are fixed forever? WP is now to be censored to avoid the "difficult" topics? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that, and didn't mean that at all - we can conceivably have a worthwhile, NPOV article on Polandball, but restoring the deleted revisions will make it much harder. There's attempts to clean up the article in the deleted history, but they never come close. The last nontrivial edit before the most recent speedy (admin-only link) is illustrative. And that's even before another Russavia sock comes along and pastes the very worst versions back in yet again. —Cryptic 20:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So restore a good version (or the best of what we've got if there aren't any good ones), clean it up & add refs presented here, then leave it as a regular article. If any issues arise with IP's screwing with it or anything, we could slap a protection on it or list it under the ones for Pending Changes. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, or know-your-meme, or trolling. No evidence of mistaken delete. Johnuniq (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Not notable, this is basically a private joke. —Neotarf (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Polandball is one of the internets most popular memes, though sadly mainstream english language coverage is hard to find. Based on what has been listed and the fact I did find further coverage in a german language book (though I don't fully understand it; see here), undelete. I've just come here from another AfD attempt on work by this user simply for the fact that this user wrote it, and it is pretty ridiculous. JTdale Talk 02:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong undelete, as based on the sources shown here and at the Simple English page, there is sufficient sourcing for Polandball to meet notability criteria. In any case, both Polandball and Draft:Polandball should be un-salted as creation protecting a page after only two instances of (what only appears to be a suspicion of) socking is ridiculous. BTW, I often read these "Polandball" comics online and it's nothing more than a geopolitical satire that pokes harmless fun at stereotypes and history; to claim it to be "racist" or a "hotbed of nationalistic conflict" is overexaggeration at best and heavy ignorance of the topic at worst. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 06:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close. As much of the commentary here demonstrates, this does not primarily involve DRV-related issues, but a complex of article-related, behavior-related, and trolling-related issues that demand structured, centralized,and prominent discussion. The accusations leveled at, and aspersions cast on, Tarc and Sandstein here are disgraceful and suggest bad faith, further supporting the point that the dispute is not really about this article, but another example of a long trail of seamy misbehavior surfacing again. The simple english article touted in several comments is an atrocious collection of NPOV violations and poor sourcing, and borders on proxying for its en-wiki banned creator; that the simple English wikipedia is becoming a refuge for en-wiki's banned incorrigibles suggests that WMF needs to be more active in project metagovernance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But for Sandstein to threaten to block other editors who want to see it recreated is OK? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For Sandstein to point out, correctly, that existing sanctions covering issues related to the article authorize blocking of editors who misbehave is not only OK, but borders on necessary. Simplifing and personalizing such issues is not OK. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it "borders on necessary", it is of course not actually necessary, thus unnecessary. The helpful mafioso pointing out what a nice pizzeria you have there and how it would be a shame for anything to happen to it, is of course merely handing out logically consistent fire safety advice.
Of course policy on misbehaviour still applies, but it is not necessary to point this out at every instance. For Sandstein to choose to do so in this particular instance is not about ensuring the moral rectitude of all concerned, it is simply a veiled threat that he has the power to block editors and is ready to do so to defend his opinions in a content battle. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why is this relevant material? I, for one, don't know who this "Russavia" is, having never interacted with him, or why he was blocked, etc., and neither do I care because that's irrelevant - as Polandball is a notable topic and that alone means it deserves an article on Wikipedia. What's being done here is that certain editors have effectively stood up a strawman that attempts to reposition this debate from one about the notability of Polandball to one about the (mis)behaviour of Russavia and other editors. And people are falling for it. Polandball is a notable topic and therefore needs an article - that's what matters. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who does not yet know who Russavia is should really know who Russavia is. In gaining the knowledge you will learn such a lot about Wikipedia. I wrote a paper on the "Eastern European Mailing List" scandal for an IT course I was attending at the time the story broke, so I know quite a lot about it (but, alas, I have lost the actual paper). You could start by searching WikiLeaks (search for "Wikipediametric"), note the names involved and note their methodology. Here is where the news broke on Wikipedia: [31] (make sure you click on show). Here is the arbitration case: [32]. If you really want to go into it deep, check the talk pages of those involved at the time the case developed. There is also off-wiki stuff if you want to look. The missing email sent to Sandstein by one of the conspirators is (for me) the big unknown. I believe that the only comment on the scandal from Jimmy Wales was along the lines of "this has nothing to do with me". Sandstein said something similar. Check the block log for Russavia, note the names involved. Check the methods and route and progression used to attain the indefinite blocking, note how similar they were to his previous "indefinite blocking" that happened just before the EEML story broke. Always have regard of the names involved. Sense their delight here [33]. And be afraid. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks, but I'd rather not get involved into all that mess. In all fairness ample derailing tactics are being employed here by both sides which has resulted in the discussion becoming centered more on Russavia and other contributors personally rather than Polandball's notability. I've already !voted here so I see no need to comment further; all that's left is for a (hopefully) impartial admin to come to this debate, realize the obvious consensus, and restore the article. Because it's notable. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 02:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. At this stage, we should focus on the notability of the topic based on third-party coverage, going into the old dramas only serves to distract and puts the discussion on a wrong bend. --benlisquareTCE 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree with the above. This discussion is about notability and the past state, supposed racism, creator or any such silliness has no bearing on the discussion and anyone who keeps saying endorsing deletion because of previous content needs to reassess how Wikipedia works. Article content can be changed, fixed, referenced, deleted and so on. It's overarching notability that matters. If simple wikipedia can get a reasonable article written on the subject, then I don't see why english wikipedia can't. JTdale Talk 08:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I totally agree. I wish the discussion would remain just about notability. But it already was becoming centered more on Russavia. Satellizer asked why this was happening, so I answered. And I think the EEML affair should be compulsory reading for every new editor because it is a case study showing the reality of everyday Wikipedia does not always live up to the ideals of how it should work. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, private joke and trolling. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's borderline. The sources listed aren't all that strong (certainly no where near as strong as the nom makes it seem). We've deleted better sourced things due to a lack of sourcing. But there is enough that I'd !vote to keep at an AfD. I can't say deletion was mistaken, but I'm leaning toward allow recreation without prejudice to a new AfD as there is enough to meet WP:N and enough to manage a reasonable article. Hobit (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation (in Draft namespace, please), and expect a new AfD as soon as it moves to mainspace. This is not the place to reargue the merits of the original arguments, but rather the correctness of the close. It seems to me that closing admin Sandstein's rationale was reasonable. The arguments in this deletion review make me think it might be possible to develop an article that meets notabiity requirements, but it's not a sure thing. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete regardless of battleground stature; the subject appears to easily pass notability. Tezero (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.