Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 9 Deletion review archives: 2008 March March 11 >

10 March 2008

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

it was deleted again giving the reason that it doesnt have any third party source. In spite of the fact that I have changed my article Youth United in terms of the no of third party sources. the problem earlier was referred to as the lack of third party sources in the article Youth United. I have included 4-5 third party sources to justify the notability of the article. these are from National Newspapers online links. Challenging the reliability of these sources are out of question. Extolmonica (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold. I can only see 2 working links, both to the Times of India. That's a decent source, but you need more substantial and widespread coverage in order to satisfy people that this should be overturned. Perhaps the best thing would be to userfy the article for now and bring it back when there's more substantial, widespread, 3rd party coverage. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working links. note nos 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are working links and they belong to different newspapers or other third party sources. they are from different national newspapers so reliability should not be questioned. this organization has a lot more print coverage so I ma arranging some scanned copies of those sources too. I recommend the retention of this article and with graduated coverage, I will keep on quoting more and more third party sources.

Seeking your cooperation.P.S. Note no 12 requires a hindi font to be downloadedExtolmonica (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As currently numbered, (you have 2 '9's) 12 is self-published, so isn't reliable. 11 requires Hindi so I can't verify that; perhaps you can find an independent editor to verify that one. I think we have rough consensus here. Suggest we close this as upheld and consider warning User:Extolmonica about SPAs and harassment. S/he seems to be hijacking the process here as a soapbox for his/her own concern. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Case History I recommend everyone to get acquainted with the case history of Youth United. for that
1) Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Youth_United, then
2) read User_talk:Extolmonica#Youth_United_3 and then
3) readUser_talk:Orangemike#Regarding_Youth_United
In spite of providing all what was called for, it was again deleted without even noticing the incorporation of reliable third party sources this time. Despite all this, I affirm the exaggeration of Wikipedia's relaxed and liberal policies by few administrators. Consider reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policies.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, clearly states that:
1) this is a guideline and not policy
2) it should be treated with common sense and OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION
3)reliable sources are required when some facts are to be proven (not to mention i aint proving any fact here.
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, clearly states that If a rule prevents from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
I hereby recommend the retention of this article to improve Wikipedia and to use Wikipedia's liberal and flexible policies and usages for the purposes they are meant for. I hereby testify my amenabilty to further provide the third party sources from time to time. Extolmonica (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold myself (if that's not out of order). This is a classic case of failure to meet our standards of notability. Most of the links come back to the same two or three articles, about a demonstration which this new group took the lead in organizing. This s.p.a. is so excited about the wonders of her group, that she wants us to IAR. I've attempted over and over again to explain that the articles must include substantial discussion of the organization; but she feels we should cut them some slack because they are new, and are going to be notable someday (the up-and-coming garage-band argument, I call it). I genuinely sympathise with her, but feel the actions of myself and other deleting admins were in order and in accord with our standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold and redelete. Even the latest reliable sources do not follow Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources and do not account for much of the text, and Extolmonica has persisted in reuploading deleted material and asserting ownership.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold The AfD discussion was about whether the sources are enough to show notability or not, and interpreting the result as a consensus to delete was proper. And while the (all added since, I assume) articles about the candle light vigil do indeed mention the group (I assume the Hindi one also was about that event, I could not find an automated translator for it), I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:ORG. WP:IAR does not apply as it's a non-profit organization like any other, so standard guidelines can be used. --Minimaki (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point First, the classic case of failure to meet the standards of notability is the lack of third party sources and not the so called newly formed substantiality issue. The sources cited were from national newspapers, and the coverage cant be that substantial without being advertising in nature, which in turn is a violation of wikipedia policies. Second, I have never said that the organization is new and it is going to be notable someday, instead I have been affirming on the point that this organization is notable, though new, and a few third party sources at this point of time should suffice to this issue, as was told to me earlier. I do have a lot of print third party sources too, which can be produce at ease, if required. If these media mentions in the print can not suffice to the purpose, then what on earth is required now. Something was told to me and we did the same. This article, after having posted and finalized, would not infringe any of the wikipedia policies, nor this is a case of a brand promotion as in other classic cases. Most importantly, if you are to be believed and followed , then I should try posting this article after 50 years or so. None of wikipedia policies are prohibiting any article about a new organization to be posted here. After 50 years also, I testify that I will be getting the coverage in a similar manners in almost same newspapers, so then too this substantiality will be raised. So as per you, I should try forgetting posting my article here. i am acquainted with at least a dozen wikipedia users, who have left wikipedia, just because of exaggeration of comparatively relaxed and flexible wikipedia policies. In the line of the ongoing discussion you may consider reading : Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules, which is a policy, and it is not on your discretion, that you choose to follow it or not. I request you to be flexible and cooperative, using wikipedia policies. Extolmonica (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rationality you are following the statement if you dont't want to listen, you won't listen.- now three more issues are raised whose justifications are quite implied in the case history, I have posted above. about citing sources, you may consider reading Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources again, where styles are particularly mentioned when referenced from any book and I am citing online sources from official websites of the newspapers, which can only be cited in classic style. further i am not citing any challenged materials like any contentious material or living persons.
Consider reading this too Wikipedia:OWN, and recall what I have written on your talk page. I have never said that I am the owner of this logo. Instead I have said that logo is copyrighted with official website of the organization, which is registered with the president of the organization, and written permission of the same can be mailed to anyone with ease.
Lastly, I want the note no 8 to be checked , which covers altogether different event of the organization.

Extolmonica (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, note 8 is a mention in connection with a different event. Still, I'm not convinced this meets WP:ORG. --Minimaki (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. DRV is not a second round to attempt to get a more favourable decision than AFD. It is only a check that the deletion process was followed correctly. All the "votes" on the AFD were in favour of deleting, therefore deletion was the decision. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Reading this. consider reading Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates, which says that Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion. Extolmonica (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply She has a good point here, Stifle; seems to me this is the proper venue for her to raise her issues! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And compared to what most SPAs seem to do, which is out of process recreation and talkpage spamming, this is actually refreshing to see the right venue being used. That being said...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But she has engaged in talkpage spamming, see this diff.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, I got the same message. However, that has all started after my previous comment above. Seeing as how the message was sent primarily to people who already commented here at DRV, I believe it was an honest misunderstanding of that template (which is meant to invite others here that have contributed to the article or prior deletion discussions (which is allowed and not considered canvassing). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rationality: . I also admit that earlier AfD was closed correctly, but it did not mean that I could not resolve the issues and I resolved all the issues now by properly citing the reliable third party sources to justify the notability of the article and hence organization. Kindly check the article and refer to the case history, cited above in this page only. So having resolved the issue of notability, i recommend the retention of this article to all the wiki admins.Thanx Extolmonica (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
added more third party sources: I have added 2 more reliable third party sources, from reputed national newspaper Indian Express. now consider reading note nos 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15. Note no 12 is not self created it is from a news website and not from a blog. I still anticipate your cooperation. thanks . Extolmonica (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for renumbering. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the appeal : I dont know why but in spite of having done everything what I was told, there seem to be problem now also. Initially I was asked to supply some reliable third party sources, now I made available links of national newspapers, then too a very abstract issue of subtantiality of the coverage of the newspaper is raised. There are as many as 6 neutral and unique third party reliable sources in the article and then too a very speculative issue is raised. Less substantiality of the article is always at the cost of neutrality or non advertising nature of the article, as should be the case. newspapers always cover incidents in a neutral and informative manner, so the very speculative issue of substantiality should be declined. I have used this portal and all the discussions and talk platforms to the maximum to raise my voice. I also tried to abide by all wikipedia policies and i hereby testify my acquaintance with the concerned wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is all about incorporation of more and more prominent stuffs, be it an article about an organization like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or an article about an organization like Youth United. I agree both are not notable to the same extend, but at the same time I affirm the notability of Youth United, to the extend, which is in accord with wikipedia polices. Let's improve Wikipedia, as should be the case. Please refer to the case history section of Youth United, posted above at this page.
I, assuming, you all having read all the case history and other concerned discussions, hereby appeal, to close the discussion in the favor of the retention of this article. Extolmonica (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to Pegasus: Hi. Don,t you think it is illegitimate to delete the content of the article Youth United, leaving only the undelete template. further you have protected the page too, an action which is not covered by any wikipedia policy. Try contributing to the deletion review and say what you have to say, there only. No intimation on any talk or discussion page, indicates non accordance of wikipedia policies. Please do consider wikipedia policies and guidelines, and behave accordingly. especially when delrev and undelete templates were placed on the article to review the earlier deletion, you haven't said anything on deletion review page and just deleted the page. Undelete template says it can not be deleted until review is not finished. Extolmonica (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality and sensibility is expected from wiki admins: I have restored an article on Youth United, with 9 added reliable third party sources. Lack of third party sources was the only reason to delete the article earlier. 9 reliable third party sources are sufficient enough for the retention of the article as told earlier. In fact more than 2 third party reliable sources were enough as was told to me earlier. So the prerequisite for having the reliable third party sources were met. Furthermore Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that it is a guideline and not the rule or policy so it must be treated with occasional exception. I don't anticipate exception in this regard, but you should at aleast try to consider it as a general case and now this article is in conformance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, guideline (AND NOT POLICY) then being admin, you should consider the retention of this article.

On the Contrary a wiki admin pegasus has deleted the whole content of the article which was restored by me in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates, which clearly states Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate. I put 2 templates delrev and undelete in this regard,
delrev:-this article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain or delete it on Wikipedia has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
in spite of the warning that this template can not be removed and this page can not be left blank the admin pegasus has deleted this template and left the page blank.
furthermore as per second template undelete, which states that an appeal has been made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored with this message in place.
in spite of these 2 templates, this wiki admin seemed to have forgotten all the wiki policies, have deleted a template and left the whole page blank. To add on everything this wiki admin has also protected the page, so that no further edits can be done, an action which is not covered by any wiki policy. Being a normal user of wikipedia, I also know that I have appealed against the earlier deletion decision and thats why I am having a deletion review here. I am using the right platform to raise my issues and this wiki admin is just using his admin tools in a very illegitimate manners. I request you to to unprotect this page and use this platform to say what you have to say. this wiki admin is not replying to any of my question and hence not in any justifiable position. Wikipedia now seems to be all meant for this wiki admin, who by using admin tool can do anything he wants, no matter its in accordance with any wikipedia policy or not. Let wikipedia be a website meant for bot admins and users. Users are now getting the feeling that they are being dictated by few of wiki admins' bureaucracy. Wikipedia is a user encyclopedia and try to assist the users and not dictate them. Seeking your cooperation. Extolmonica (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Lists of fictional topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I would like to organize the lists on Wikipedia about fictional things. There are many lists of fictional things on Wikipedia, but no list to tie them together in a meaningful way.

The primary list was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things. The participants in that AfD seemed to interpret "Lists of fictional things" as "List of fictional things", the latter being seen as far too large in scope for a single list (and therefore indescriminate), while the former title signified a list of existing lists on Wikipedia and therefore was not indescriminate at all (as it was intended as a navigation aid to fictional things presented in Wikipedia, to provide a "top end" to the list structure that already exists for this subject).

I've come before you to clear up this confusion, and to request that you allow me to create a new list from scratch designed to assist in the navigation of Wikipedia's fiction lists, and by extension the fictional topics they present.

For a comparison of other lists of lists on Wikipedia, see Lists of people, Lists of mathematics topics, Lists of philosophy topics, Lists of countries, Lists of mountains, and Lists of topics. When a subject covered in a list becomes too large to be handled in a single list, its parts are split off and the main list becomes a list of lists. Lists of lists are also created by gathering lists belonging to an overriding topic together, which is what I want to do for fictional topics.

Wikipedia has many Lists of lists, and together they form the Lists of topics system, which serves as a table of contents to Wikipedia.

The new list that I'd like to create would be part of that system.

There is a category for lists of fictional things, but I believe I can do a better job presenting Wikipedia's fiction-related lists than the cateogory does, and the new list would tie Wikipedia's existing lists of fictional topics together so that they can serve as an integrated table of contents to the fictional topics included on Wikipedia.

Please let me do so.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the 'navigational aid' point anything other than a nice theory? As in, does anybody know them to be actually used for that purpose? Splash - tk 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I use them for that purpose, and I get praise from time to time from others who find the lists I've created useful. So that's some indication. More relevant to this discussion is that the community intends them to be used in this way, because the community has made navigation one of the purposes of lists as stated in the guideline on lists. As such, creating lists is part of Wikipedia's mission, and lists are undeniably a part of Wikipedia. This is not the place to debate the merit of the guidelines and design philosophies of the encyclopedia, only their applicability to this specific list creation proposal. I hope that you agree that my request is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines and established development goals. The Transhumanist 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for it. You've presented your rationale well, and I agree with your reasoning. I say permit recreation by Transhumanist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That'd fall foul pretty instantaneously of CSD G4 given the exactitude of the content and substantial prior AfD. I presume that is why Transhumanist has sought a DRV. Splash - tk 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the last-but-one deleted revision, this was not lists of fictional things, but a list singular of fictional things, from Rudolph to Big Bird. It did not reference a single other list. The version immediately prior to the deletion from the AfD was, however, properly as described in the nomination statement here. I'm not sure yet what to say, but I am concerned that a good number of the deleters in the AfD were mis-reading or misguided about what the article actually was. That itself would be enough to overturn (and revert to 31 July 2007) to have the chance to conduct the AfD with a clearer statement of content. Splash - tk 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation using this excellent rationale by Transhumanist. If the prior list was flawed, it should not impact a new list that is within the scope of the actual title. If as Splash suggests the voted-on article was merely vandalized, we have a flawed AFD and an overturn is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that's not what I meant. For Lists of fictional things, it was like this: (article proper to its title) -> AfD -> Deleted -> Recreated as list of fictional creatures -> G4 speedied. The article was in its correct state during the AfD. Aaaaand, as I set out below, that's not even the AfD being considered; the nomination here is rather indirect in that sense. Splash - tk 10:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah hang on. The nomination here is slightly misleading. The AfD that is talked about was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things, where there may have been some problems of perception. The AfD for this article was different: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional topics, unanimously deleted the article, even collecting deletes from some notable inclusionists. The AfD for Things was endorsed at DRV here, with minimal dissent. We appear to be being asked to reverse a repeatedly-expressed consensus of many different editors on at least two different articles on at least three separate occasions (AfD, AfD, DRV), not to mention the talk pages of the various articles. Why should we do so? Splash - tk 10:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, consensus at the AfD is clear that such a list is too wide in scope, I don't think that has changed. The issues brought up in the AfD still apply. I see no reason to overturn this unanimous consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong. (1 == 2)Until 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. DRV is not a venue to try and get a more sympathetic result than AFD, rather it is a venue to check that the deletion process has been followed. There is a consensus that the article should be deleted, why should we change that? Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we change that? Er, I think that's what he explained in his opening paragraph. He's not trying to recreate what was deleted, persay, but make it what it was supposed to be in the first place. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, not really. When it was deleted it was indeed a list of lists. That is exactly how it would return, as I mentioned above. The question is whether the deleters in the first place had correctly understood the article. Splash - tk 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a userfied version, pre-DRV. Good suggestion, JoshuaZ. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Klondike Kalamity – This one is fairly tight, just like the original AFD (which perhaps might have been closed as no consensus rather than a second relisting). Four overturn requests and six endorses came out of this DRV, and I think the correct result is endorse closure, but based on the comments it should be clear that it is without any prejudice against recreating the article with improved sources and notability details. – Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 08:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Klondike Kalamity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was relisted twice, ostensibly to seek a "more thorough discussion", after the initial period produced no consensus either way--and there were no further contributions during the first relisting period. It was closed less than 12 hours after the second relisting, when the consensus was momentarily in favor of deletion. Folks, this looks really really bad. The closing admin closed it after a momentary shift in consensus, shortly after it was re-listed, when that shift just happened to be in the direction that he indicated he already agreed with. If, after 20 whole days, no consensus is reached, it's horribly bad form to close it a mere 12 hours after re-listing when a momentary shift in consensus just happens to agree with the closing admin's own prejudices. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To increase the bar of accuracy somewhat here (as the closing Admin) I comment as follows. The article has had 20 days to find consensus. I did not have a prejudice towards deletion or to the article itself but I did form the opinion that it had reached a consensus for delete (after 10 days of first AfD and it reaching the Old Backlog) prior to putting it back up for relisting at the reasonable request of Metropolitan90. It was again relisted, correctly IMO by Master of Puppets because no other comments had been received. I did not canvass for votes or have anything else to do with the article. The article immediately received further comments that formed an even greater consensus towards delete based on lack of notability - even after Kurt put up some rather unhelpful comments such as Frankly, why is "notability" even relevant?; and in response to a request by another editor for him to read WP:EVERYTHING he wrote Read it; it's bullshit--it runs counter to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. Relisting does not guarantee a further 5 days but seeks to generate further discussion so that consensus can be reached. Further in the 20 days of AfD - despite some valiant attempts by Metropolitan90, and no further return by the originating author (even though some suggestions directly to him/her had been placed in the AfD) the article still does not appear provide notability to the standards required - and this is the consensus that was formed by nominating users.--VS talk 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To increase the bar of accuracy here (sorry, couldn't resist) I'll point out that by my reading (including one "Comment") it looks like 4 to 5 in favor of deleting. That is a squeaker of a majority, and not consensus by any means. Avruch T 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahmm are we reading the same AfD - I read 6 deletes and 2 keeps (plus probably one from the original author)--VS talk 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are, but I counted the author and forgot the nom, plus I included a "Comment" that was mostly a keep. Ah... higher math.Avruch T 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ahhh - the old count the comment as required routine - that would be the comment from Dhartung which he later turned into a Delete? - good come back Max . I like it - made me smile. Cheers!--VS talk 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC) PS Does that at all make you want to change your comment below on consensus point?--VS talk 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. Mvuijlst (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure After something has been relisted, it is always eligible for closure. The timing argument above is just plain wrong. The only keep argument presented after relisting was that the article can be kept simply because we can verify the existence of the play. That is also wrong; we keep articles where we can write policy compliant articles - including WP:NPOV and WP:V. The community consensus on this is captured at Wikipedia:Notability; we need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject of the article. This community consensus is reflected in the consensus of opinions in the AFD - that such sources were not presented. Should they be found and an article created that uses them, there will not be difficulty in recreating. But consensus was clear and in line with community consensus and no procedural flaws exist. GRBerry 21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So-called "policy compliance" is irrelevant, since on Wikipedia, what is termed "policy" is non-binding. It merely describes what has happened in the past; there is absolutely no obligation to abide by it in the present. Bureaucratic rules and policies are not relevant; all that matters is whether keeping it around helps or hurts the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom, and:

Not exactly definitive sources, but in the absence of a clear consensus to delete, it should have been kept. Avruch T 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedurally sound closure, but probably the wrong result. Google books shows at least one useful seeming source, news shows an LA Times review. Given the rather poor coverage those tools provide, there's likely more out there in a major library. The tedious implications of conspiracy and bad faith are not helpful. Endorse closure, lament deletion, encourage recreation, happy to userfy the deleted article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and return to article space once it has sufficient sources. The Transhumanist 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The procedure is not a rigid rules book for us to use to nuke content. There's enough here to convince me that the play existed and still is playing on and off - the notability concerns given seem relatively weak. Deleting this was a mistake, and it should be recreated. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This looks like a perfectly valid article on a perfectly legitimate play. Eclecticology (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, obviously per my !vote, but without prejudice against a sourced article. The accusations, hand-waving, and attacks on procedure (and just barely not on editors) by Kurt Weber were not helpful, and I would hope he would realize that. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I can't find anything wrong with the closure. I also agree with the deletion decision. This just looks like a not (yet) notable play to me that got reviewed a couple of times and (though not a reason for deletion) it was written by a person who purports to be the playwright. Just because a play is written, performed and reviewed does not make it notable and I'm seeing nothing in the sources cited so far that makes me think this is a notable play. Sarah 03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - and wish to point out that Kurt Weber has taken a position (here and elsewhere) that WP:N is bad policy and must be ignored. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure without prejudice to re-creation if better sources can be found. Even though I supported keeping the article during the AfD, the consensus after the second relisting was in favor of deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. If consensus was not reached for that long, a sudden change in consensus immediately before closure simply looks fishy, regardless of the intention of the closing admin.--Dycedarg ж 05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure As was explained above, the consensus was to delete at any given point in time of the AfD discussion (in the eyes of the closing admin), so most of the points raised concerning procedure are moot. And with or without this review, once better sources for notability can be found, nothing speaks against re-creation. --Minimaki (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
National High School Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I am hoping to receive some guidance from Wikipedia administrators on the exact protocol regarding the deletion of an article. In mid-December I posted an article entitled “National High School Center”. For background, the National High School Center is an educational organization funded by the U.S. Department of Education that provides information and free-of-charge resources on high school improvement issues. As of now, Wikipedia has a category for “Educational organization” which lists 183 other educational organizations similar to the National High School Center.

A couple weeks after my article was posted, it was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven:

14:57, 19 January 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) deleted "National High School Center" ‎ (not an article)

Per Wikipedia’s protocol, I contacted DragonflySixtyseven on February 12, 2008 on his/her talk page to discuss in detail the deletion of our article but have not yet heard back from the user. Is there any way I can get more information regarding the deletion of our article from Wikipedia administrators? Further, what are the next steps for re-posting the article or editing it so that it can be re-posted? I was hoping to receive guidance on how exactly to modify it and re-post the article so users can benefit from our information. Highschoolimprovement (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the deleted version, it was a copyright violation of [5], with many sentenecs lifted straight or near-straight from that page. So, without commenting on possible other problems, the first thing to change would be to create a version which is not so firmly based on another text (website), but consists of your own words. Furthermore, it is best that articles are based on different sources, to provide a balanced, neutral view of the subject. Fram (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the detailed statement you have provided here. I'm sorry you've not heard back from the deleting administrator. As identified by Fram above, the article is an infringement of the copyright at the identified website. Perhaps you work for that organisation, but even so the language an organisation uses to talk about itself is not in general suitable for re-deployment in an encyclopedia (see here and here for example). For content guidance as to appropriateness and standards of inclusion as you consider re-writing the article, see specifically WP:ORG and more generally WP:NOTABILITY, along with the need for reliable, third-party sources to back things up. Splash - tk 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, with no prejudice against what Splash and Fram said about how to write a great one. Unfortunately, we cannot accept copyrighted (copywrit?) material here per our license. Write a great article about NHSC in your "userspace" (and please ask anyone here if you don't know what that means or how to create something in your sandbox) and bring your draft here for review. I'd be happy to help you recreate a neutral and sourced article in mainspace at that time. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not a free web host. Also copyright issues. A better deletion summary by D67 would have helped. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_10&oldid=1136100486"