Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 26

Toyota Axina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article was deleted as a hoax or nonsense piece. It isn't. I work in the motor industry and can confirm this car does exist. It's not in production yet. It's notable, ALL RIGHT!! Okay, can we discuss this now, pleeeease!!! Flakysnow-494 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Based on this, obvious hoax. Compare that to Toyota Tercel. - Denny 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, blatantly obvious. --Coredesat 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. Valid closure and no new sources provided to review here. -- Satori Son 00:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

So... This is a bit confusing, but please bear with me. Determining if Flash cartoons and artists are notable is quite difficult: web rankings can often be misleading, and the popularity of certain things is hard to ascertain. Fred the Monkey, I think, fits into the category of "notable, but just barely". The cartoons are produced by the animation of a single artist, and it takes a lot of time to make a single episode. Because of this, updates are very, very rare. The site has been up for roughly 4 years, and there's only been 20+ cartoons. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Fred, but the last time I checked for a new cartoon was about three months ago. And since web rankings are obviously based on hits, we can guess that FTM will be lower than, say, Newgrounds. This isn't because less people know about it; rather, it is because FTM simply has less hits due to it being a single artist's work, as opposed to several. That does not, however, make it any less notable. Google search results would back this up. Several cartoons have been featured on Newgrounds, the Cubetoons article still exists (albeit due to being featured on IGN), and the Fred the Monkey forums are some of the most active I've been on. Captain Wikify ^Argh! 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn by nominee. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:V requires independent reliable sources, of which there are exactly zero. And neither forum activity nor google hits make something notable anyway. -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - WP:WEB not fulfilled, neither is WP:V, so it was deleted for appropriate reasons despite SPAs. Wickethewok 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid interpretation of the AfD debate. Lack of sources not remedied. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. We do not follow a principle of "notable unless proved otherwise"; if something cannot be proved notable, it is not. Tizio 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, I was in a huge rush when I typed this and forgot to check the guidelines. I'll withdraw this nomination for now and open a new one once I can find proper sources and sites. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The stub did indicate why the subject was notable. The article was deleted within 5 minutes of creation; no one gave me a chance to improve the article Abridged 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More info: A message was left on my talk page that the article was tagged at 17:16. The article was deleted at 17:17. Also note that the deleting admin could not have given this much careful consideration since he deleted 5 other articles the same minute by his log of user contributions, and clearly did not take the time to confirm that the criteria for speedy deletion had been met before deleting. Abridged 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - unless an article is pure vandalism, it shouldn't be deleted so quickly when active improvement is still going on. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't have any problem with the rapid response, but "Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. // Bibliography // Homeopathic Medical Repertory, 1993 (1st edition), 2005 (3rd edition), [1][2]" is a clear and unambiguous assertion of notability. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn If that was the entire content, more will obviously be needed to fully establish notability, so I would have added a prod tag, not a speedy, to give it a chance. Dont bite the newbies. DGG 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that was just the claim to notability. The article was a biostub: Robin Murphy (born, 1950, Grand Rapids, Michigan) is a Naturopath and homeopath. Dr. Murphy became interested in homeopathy as an undergraduate. He studied homeopathy at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) where he earned an ND in 1980, and directed the homeopathy program there from 1980-1984. He has also taught at Bastyr University. He directs the Hahnemann Academy of North America. Dr. Murphy is best known for his publication of reference texts in the field of homeopathy. Three books, two refs, one link to a bio. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy not justified. --Lee Hunter 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Um. Not an A7, but awfully, awfully spammy. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain why you think that? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is a "A7"? Here's a link to the way the page looked when it was deleted [2]. I don't see how "spammy" applies, and I consider that a violation of WP:BITE. Abridged 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "A7" is one of the criteria for speedy deletion: WP:CSD#A7. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This article made a clear assertion of notability, so it's not a speedy candidate. If the notability is in doubt, it should be discussed on AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment; I think a speedy close here would be justified as everyone agrees. DGG 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, as the deleted article did enough to make it not a CSD A7. I would be inclined to argue for its deletion on a AfD (as "fully spammy," maybe) but that would be the place for it. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy, but without prejudice against listing at WP:AFD. -- Xtifr _tälk 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I placed the speedy on it because I didn't feel notability was clearly asserted, although it is a close call. Also, the article was apparently deleted due to a prod a week earlier as well. I have no problem with the article remaining if the concerns about notability are addressed. Hatch68 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What needs to be asserted is "importance", not "notability": Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria --NE2 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to endorse the speedy-deletion based on the evidence available at the time. However, the speedy-deletion has been contested in good faith so an undeletion and listing to AFD is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpamysh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe the page was deleted too soon, despite having undergone major improvements and citing all its sources, including the main source on which it was based. The page should have remained for at least another day to allow for it further improvement, or at least be moved to my personal Talk page to improve it there. Currently, I have no backup of it, and simply can't re-write it as there were several sources and quotes that I found before and can't find them all again. It is better to restore the page, and I will re-write it even more. Note that the original request for deletion came only after the first, preliminary version of the page, whilst by the time the article got deleted, it was in its 2.0 version. To make the story short, if the page gets restored, I will quickly make it conform fully to all Wiki standards, it won't be very hard, since the article had a good collection of quotes and research in it, and will need only minor shortening and adjustment. --Wisconsin96 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This was deleted as a copyvio, which seems to be partially true. Do you want me to email you a copy of the text? If you rewrite it, make sure you don't lift passages from other sources without attribution. ~ trialsanderrors 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden State Ambulance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Just wondering what happened to this article. I can't find it on the list of deleted articles and it's not even showing up under my account at all. I can't find any record of it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Javastein (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Deleted as a company not showing significance by User:Rspeer according to the logs. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: suggest this be closed, as Javastein didn't present any arguments for undeletion—merely asked what happened to the article. But also suggest that this not be considered to prejudice a possible relisting at Deletion Review with reasons, if anyone wants to try, and has reasons to offer us. Xtifr _tälk 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article has been deleted a number of times which really is rather stupid. Its also been protected from being recreated. Read the articles talk page to see how badly this deletion needs overturned. It was deleted orginally for unnotability but it cant be categorised under this, not anymore. They've been interviewed on XFM and performed live, as well as getting play on Radio 1, working with Bloc Party and Klaxons, currently on a headline tour, their debut single sold out on PRE-ORDERS they now have a new member and are widely considered the hottest new band in the whole of the UK by NME. Read the talk page, the people have spoken and they want this article. Now.--Shookvitals 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Shookvitals (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Overturn and list. This band certainly meets our standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Where are the reliable sources? MySpace, YouTube, their own web site and the web site of their record company do not qualify. They have no entry at allmusic.com. Corvus cornix 19:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a number of scans from NME, Articles from various websites as well if that counts?--Shookvitals 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Got more sources? List them. Otherwise, I'm going to have to say Endorse. Show the article can pass WP:BAND, that's all you need to do. Scans aren't necessary, an article cite should be fine. --UsaSatsui 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Previously endorsed in January with the same arguments/purported sources. Unless new sources are offered this will be speedily closed. "Stupid" is no reason to reconsider this. ~ trialsanderrors 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Its proponents say Hadouken is the inventor of a genre or something. Ridiculous. How many times do we have to go through this? JuJube 01:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So delete that. The band can still be notable without that claim. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse valid deletion, "getting popular" is not a reason to change that. Bring sources. Reliable ones, independent of the band. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've asked NME for verification of the claimed magazine scans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have more sources, a particularly interesting ones from Gigwise which prove a number of things
  1. They were one of the headlining bands on a Myspace new music tour[3]
  2. They released a single[4]
  3. Fantastic one here showing the effect theyre having at the minute[5]
  4. 4th on the NME chart show ahead of the new My Chemical Romance video[6]

  I'll willing supply more if needed--Shookvitals 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does the NME chart count as a "national music chart"? If it does, they pass WP:BAND under criteria #1. --UsaSatsui 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Get cracking, the more times you vote, the more influence you'll have..." does not instill confidence. Looks like poll stuffing to me. ~ trialsanderrors 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, and the 25-30 selections you can choose from aren't helping either. Nevermind, that chart is junk. --UsaSatsui 21:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per guy, and the nominator's comment "stupid" makes it pretty tough to assume good faith here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait let me get this straight, the page is not being unprotected because I said that it was 'stupid' that it was? I'm sorry but since when has 'stupid' been such an offensive word. I could have said something a lot more offensive but I didn't. Im trying to be as useful as I can here but I just feel that everyone is always against the 'new guy'. Isnt their a rule on wikipedia 'Don't be a dick' or something. Im pretty sure most of you would fail it.--Shookvitals 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't say that I see any serious assertion of notability in the deleted versions of the page so I can't disagree with the various deleting editors. But the speedy-deletion is being contested in good faith so overturn speedy-deletion and list to AFD where definite evidence will be needed to show that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction that builds the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This article needs to be brought back, but renamed. A list of fiction that builds the fourth wall would be useless, as it would include pretty much all fiction. But a list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall - by first looking like breaking it but then not breaking it after all - is much more interesting. The AfD debate failed to consider this view. This should be undeleted and renamed to List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall or List of fiction that restores the fourth wall. JIP | Talk 17:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - perhaps the reason that no one considered the viewpoint was because no one (including this DRV nominator) offered it. The article was correctly deleted, but there is no bar to the nominator or anyone else creating List of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall. Otto4711 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse deletion. I was thinking of the wrong article. The list of fiction that rebuilds the fourth wall was in the main article, but removed without explanation. I have added it back. JIP | Talk 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The original review was closed for what the closing admin believed to be a necessary precaution based on possible office issues. The office has since spoken, and said they won't have a statement on it, so this is just to re-open it. Please see the original review for comments and concerns. badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note: Opinions in the aborted original discussion will be taken as still valid at closing time if the editor offering such opinions has not withdrawn or updated them. Please do not feel obligated to repeat them here. GRBerry 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin's rationale: I deleted this under WP:BLP and *not* for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopaedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you feel parts of the article are problematic, delete those parts. The article does use reliable sources for a large part of the content; non-contentious claims are sourced from Bauer's own web site (as is permitted by policy) and contentious claims are sourced from Writer Beware and the official Writer Beware blog (which is a reliable source, IMO). Some claims are sourced with primary sources, which is far from ideal, but does provide us with means of verification that the statements are true. I guess, however, that it is these parts of the article you objected to, so I'd suggest deleting those parts, rather than the entire article. JulesH 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Based on what was there before (multiple, non-trivial sources establishing notability). If there are POV/neutrality concerns that is now an editing matter. Also the current history link isn't working, an admin must fix that. We cannot see now what was there before. Please restore ASAP. - Denny 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Seeing the history, restore/undo the deletion. Someone can AfD after if they feel like it, once it's restored. - Denny 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The article was well-sourced and meets WP:V and WP:BLP. The BLP policy doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - even by the most stringent policy interpretations there is no basis for deletion. Phil Sandifer 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (reaffirm) Restore - I agree with Crotalus horridus. This sets a bad precedent. St jb
• keep deleted. The Barbara Bauer article was one of several articles created on Wikipedia in May 2006 by User:JulesH for the stated purpose of, "I just feel that the information about them provided by the SFWA should be disseminated more widely". The sole basis for these articles (the others have been deleted) was a list on a website that does not provide data to back-up their claims, thus making it impossible for Wikipedians to verify the website's claims. This one website source is not the basis for posting rumors about a living person on Wikipedia, even if the claims are true. I do not understand all the "inside" talk (by Wikipedia editors who know the parties involved in real-world disputes with Barbara Bauer) on the Talk:Barbara Bauer and related pages, but it is clear that there is a group of editors who have collaborated to keep negative information about Barbara Bauer on Wikipedia, using only blogs and other unreliable internet sources in their citations. These "owners" of the article have been repeatedly challenged by other Wikipedians who pointed out that use of unreliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The original attempt to delete the Barbara Bauer article was held off under the condition that the article would be built using reliable sources (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bauer), however the unreliable website sources were retained. The only reason this page exists is to repeat the claims of an unreliable website source that does not provide evidence for its claims, only a set of conclusions. There is no reason for Wikipedia to repeat these conclusions other than the desire of a few Wikipedia editors to use Wikipedia as a mechanism for amplifying the conclusions of the other website. This is not a basis for building a Wikipedia article about a living person, even if the claims are true. This has nothing to do with responding to "spurious legal threats". There are thousands of webpages that make unverifiable claims about living people. Wikipedia is not here as a mechanism for amplifying those claims. In my view, the link to "Writer Beware" at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America should be enough coverage of this issue for Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as OFFICE stated on the mail list they are not taking a position, can an admin please restore the history of the last couple versions at least so people can judge/see what was there fairly? - Denny 18:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It is not required that Wikipedia be able to verify the web site (an official publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, an influential and well-reputed professional association); it is only necessary that we can verify that they published the information that is attributed to them in the text. This is true. I see no text in the AfD debate that suggests the result was "keep pending removal of [some] sources." The claims in the article are well-sourced to reliable sources. The only even remotely dubious source (used for "Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites. Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.") is (a) a very weakly-phrased claim, (b) is undisputably a reliable WP:A#Primary_and_secondary_sources primary source for the claim being made. Besides, if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article. JulesH 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to JulesH. The cited webpage says, "Below, in alphabetical order, is a list of the currently active literary agencies about which Writer Beware has received the largest number of complaints over the years, or which, based on documentation we've collected, we consider to pose the most significant hazard for writers." That website does not show us the "complaints" and "documentation" that support their claims. The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is to make sure that Wikipedia does not find itself in the position of repeating claims that are not reliably sourced. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources says: "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I take this to mean that we need to cite a reliable third-party source that verifies the undocumented claims made by the "Writer Beware" website. What is a reliable third-party source for a Wikipedia biography? "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." About the original article deletion discussion, the article was saved from speedy deletion by an administrator who called for the article to be cleaned up; relevant comments from the discussion: "Weak keep if attacks are removed", "article is in desperate need of cleanup", "Strong Delete Wikipedia is not Google", "This is not the place to air dirty laundry and one-sided personal attacks". "if some of the article is inadequately sourced, the solution is to remove the inadequately sourced content, not delete the article" <-- but in this case, the article was created for one purpose, to have Wikipedia repeat an unverifiable claim by website; this is not why Wikipedia has biographical encyclopedia articles. --JWSchmidt 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You're misinterpreting the policy. Wikipedia does not require its sources to provide sources for their information; that would be insane. SFWA Writer Beware is a reliable third-party source. Because Writer Beware is such a source, the information is clearly not unverifiable. The purpose of Wikipedia having biographical articles is to inform people who are researching a particular person about who that person is, and what they have done. I'm well aware of this, and I dispute the suggestion that the reason I created this article was merely to have Wikipedia repeat the information: I found well sourced information that seemed to me to be notable and interesting, and I created articles on its subjects. It was later decided that of those articles, only this one should remain. JulesH 17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a Wikipedia biography page, a reliable third party source for negative information about the subject might be a reputable newspaper that has trained investigative reporters, editors and fact checkers. Such a source might publish an investigative report in which they examine court documents and provide the public with a carefully documented report of how many claims for damages have been awarded to customers of a business. Such a source might publish the names of people who have gone to court with claims against a company and print direct quotes from them that reveal the problems they had in trying to do business with the company. Such a source would also have a section in their article where they ask the company for their perspective on the customer complaints against the company. The Writer Beware webpage does not come close to meeting these standards for being a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography article. Wikipedia does not exist as a means to amplify unverifiable negative claims about people that are made by websites. --JWSchmidt 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that Wikipedia's policy is that only newspapers can provide reliable sources for biographies. Writer Beware is a publication of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, one of the most important professional associations that exists for genre fiction writers. It is an important and credible source by any standards I've ever seen discussed even remotely in connection with a wikipedia policy. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - looking at the Google cache, I honestly don't see how this person meets WP:BIO standards. The sources are either self-referential, have no actual information, or are blogs, which to me doesn't stand up very well. If someone can come forward with good, reliable sources, then perhaps it's worthy, but right now? I don't see it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I note that I can't see any sources that may have been added after the Google cache was created, just for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Articles which turn into Interwebs smearfests about living people should be deprecated, demolished and buried. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for criticism or praise - it is a compendium of what has already been published in reliable sources. The article in question consisted almost entirely of what has been (negatively) said about the person on blogs and message boards. WP:BLP specifically prohibits the use of these sites as sources for biographies. "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." Surely there is something which has been published in a reliable source which discusses the allegations for/against this person in a neutral manner, if this truly is not a tempest in a teapot, right? FCYTravis 21:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion - see rationale at the top.--Doc^g 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Your rational is already logged. ~ trialsanderrors 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Restore. (1) No OFFICE action -- if and when there is, it can be dealt with then; (2) Previous AfD closed as "keep"; (3) subject satisfies WP:BIO as a subject, due to controversy covered in multiple sources; and finally, (4) article does not violate WP:BLP for two reasons I analyze below:

1. The main source of her notoriety is her filing of a lawsuit, the verifiability of which is incontrovertable by reference to public records sources.
2. The collateral sources which form the basis of the public controversy in which she is embroiled meet WP:RS. The SFWA site is not a personal home page, blog, fan site, rumor site, etc; it is the official site of a respected and established professional organization, the equivalent in its field to (for example) the American Medical Association or the American Bar Association. The author of the SFWA piece, A. C. Crispin, is an officer of the organization, and a well-known author in her own right. As for Making Light, while it is a blog, it clearly fits the exception in WP:RS to the general prohibition on self-published sources, "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Teresa Nielsen Hayden unquestionably meets those qualifications.

This article is a good example of how we can show that Wikipedia is capable of neutral, professional coverage of controversial matters, even matters in which it is a party. Restore. --MCB 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, it says "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used." The Writer Beware blog is not a self-published blog; it is published on behalf of a reputable organization. Making Light may be inappropriate as a source here, and I would suggest the removal of that and the information sourced to it following restoration of the article. It is irrelevant now, anyway, as news of the lawsuit against Wikipedia, Nielsen Hayden, Jenna Glatzer, "Miss Snark" et al is sure to make some non-blog source. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment History restored behind protection. ~ trialsanderrors 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and keep article provided that better sourcing is added. Reliability of the original sourcing was not at all clear. ~This is an instance of where we do have to be careful of BLP. The withdrawal of the Office action was not a license to ignore BLP, but rather a statement that they relied upon us to evaluate with it properly in the usual way. DGG 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment There was no OFFICE action. I remarked on the email list about the office not being open. Please don't make leading comments like this. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (reaffirming) Restore - for the reasons I previously stated in the closed DRV.[7] A few additional notes: some of the criteria decried as being lacking in the most recent text of the article was missing due to disagreements over proper application of RS. For example: the Nielsen Haydens are certainly notable (each has an article here), but there was disagreement whether (and to what degree) their blog, Making Light, could be cited as it pertained to what happened between them and Bauer. (One editor, for reasons of his own, preferred that they and Absolute Write not be mentioned at all.) Similarly, the Writer Beware blog is a direct outgrowth of the Writer Beware section of the SFWA site, is run by two notable writers who are well known and respected for their anti-scam work for SFWA, and should not be deprecated as a source. As for BB's own notability, unfortunately it arises primarily from negative information as reported by SFWA and other sources. If one looks through the old Talk thread, there is considerable discussion of two or three secondary sources that nearly everyone associated with the article considered sufficiently reliable for inclusion. Every attempt was made to limit the article to this, but this limitation ironically has the effect of making the article seem less clear and complete, so that it ends up seeming less well sourced than it actually is. And of course, one of the the main claims that we were trying to properly source, that Bauer has been known to make (poorly founded) legal threats against those who mention her online in a negative light, is now confirmed by the existence of this very docket in Superior Court in NJ. This seems likely to engender the sort of mainstream reporting that was previously so scarce on the ground. Again, I urge that all these sources and the issues surrounding this article be considered in depth; a superficial reading does not do justice to the complexity of the situation regarding the article and its subject. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. There is no exception for "notable writers who are well known and respected." No blogs, period. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The deletion rationale hinges on the reliability of the sources. I am convinced of the reliability of SFWA. Surely SWFA has more than enough reliability to at least discuss its worthiness via AfD. Kla'quot 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore MCB makes a very compelling argument for restoration. Statements were all sourced, and not original works of wikipedia. Article should be restored.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore This certainly qualifies as reliable and sourced. I saw no libelous statements, everything was nice and sourced. WP:BLP doesn't mean we can't have neutral article on people just because they are criticised. Oskar 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Endorse I don't feel this meets WP:BIO at all. What in that article establishes notability? The fact that her agency appears in the SFWA worst 20 agencies list can't be it all on its own, as not all of the rest of those agencies seem to have articles. The only other references there are several bios which do nothing for notability, one link that doesn't work at all, a couple blogs entries, and court information that can't be included without delving into the same area of WP:OR that Jimbo already said his piece on. There are no newspaper articles, no other secondary sources of any kind. Even assuming the blogs are reliable sources, from where exactly is her supposed notability coming from? I fully agree with the nominator that this article is completely unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion No content worth salvaging. Complete BLP violation. --Tbeatty 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and if there's still controversy put through AfD again. The notability of this individual looks potentially questionable, though being in a top twenty suggests she may be worth having an article about and surviving the previous AfD suggests I'm not alone in this suspicion. The alleged BLP violation looks bogus to me, the article's got plenty of decent sources backing up the various statements (the word "blog" is not radioactive) and I don't see any clear NPOV violations. Bryan Derksen 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BLP specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. So yes, it is radioactive. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted per FCYTravis. Take one unremarkable person, add one or more unremarkable events, and stir in innuendo to taste. The usual recipe for WP:BLP nightmares in fact. Logically there have to be 20 worst agencies in any list of 21 or more literary agencies, so being one of them isn't a great achievement. Usually these kinds of articles are built from newspaper reporting, which is bad enough, but this is based on blogs and dead links. As Tbeatty says, there is nothing here worth salvaging. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore (my vote was already in the previous debate). MCB and Karen have shared the facts on this matter in detail above and it makes little sense for me to rehash them. There is no BLP violation to deal with. The deletion being reviewed concerns BLP, if her notability is questioned, that can be handled on AFD. It is not the place of DRV to judge her notability. An article that already survived an AFD does not lack notability to the point it warrants speedy deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is restored, it should be done without the bad source material (i.e. blog entries). Cary Bass ^demandez 12:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Bryan Derksen et al, and because there was no cause for a speedy deletion in the first place. The article having previously gone through AfD last month ago, the most that should have been done as an initial action by Admin was a further AfD nomination. Js farrar 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore multiple non-trival cites for reliable, verifiable and persistent sources. Meets BLP. Edivorce 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore The sources are all fine: Bauer herself for non-controversial claims, her university for background information on her qualifications, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a large professional organisation that provides advice about finding suitable representation to writers (cited twice -- once from their own page, once from the official blog of "writer beware", one of their projects), a blog produced by an expert in the field of the publishing industry, along with primary documentary evidence of a court case. Despite two of the sources being blogs, they are both acceptable according to the definitions at WP:RS. No information is contained that is not backuped up by at least one of these sources. There has been no violation of WP:BLP here. JulesH 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:RS is overruled by WP:BLP, which specifically says that no blog is acceptable as a source for a biography of a living person unless the blog is published by the article subject. FCYTravis 17:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in that case, WP:BLP needs reviewing. Saying a source is unusable simply because of the format in which that source is published is so silly as to be beyond belief. Js farrar 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that this proviso needs reviewing. Surely the intent is to prevent Wikipedia from saying, "According to Barney Rubble's blog, Dick Dastardly has been seen cheating in races." Rubble has no standing of reliability in such a case. But if Rubble says, "Fred Flintstone tried to get me fired after I pointed out his illegal rock-crushing methods," and Rubble is a known expert in the field of rock crushing, then that is an appropriate source to cite. He is a) speaking within his field of expertise, and b) talking about what happened to himself in relation to the subject. This is the situation with Bauer vis-a-vis the two blogs mentioned here. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be. From WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." There is no process, approval or editing system involved in a blog. All you have to do is type and submit. That makes them, then, the least-trustworthy and least-credible sources, and for biographies of living persons, there is absolutely no call to use any source which is not absolutely and inarguably credible and reliable. If we simply publish endless piles of blog opinion about a person, what we get is not a biography but a scandal sheet, listing every gripe every person has ever had about said person, no matter how trivial, false or overblown. The only thing we can reliably say about Ms. Bauer is that she's been listed on this "20-worst" list, and that she has a college degree. FCYTravis 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You are missing the point. Blogs are not edited, reviewed or vetted, as any reliable secondary source should be." And you're missing the point too: Publication method (which is what a blog is) is totally orthogonal to editorial process (which is what you're talking about). Some blogs *are* edited in the format you're talking about. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that this blog is attached to a reliable website. If they'd posted it to their website instead of the blog. We wouldn't be having this discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or is not self-published, which is the case for one of the two blogs in question. JulesH 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - All sources pass WP:BLP and WP:RS, deletion was without merit. --Silas Snider (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I agree with Docs original assessment. Additionally, I'm not seeing why this subject meets WP:BIO and the article was certainly very overbalanced negatively while using completely unacceptable sources for those claims (per WP:BLP}. Shell ^babelfish 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if your issue is notability, then that should be discussed at AfD, after an undeletion, in order to get a wider audience for the question. The last AfD closed with a keep result. Nothing has changed, except that Ms Bauer has issued a law suit against Wikipedia, the SFWA (along with two of its officials), the operators of the blog that is cited in the article, the operator and former operator of the "Absolute Write" web site that is mentioned in the article, a person identified only as "Miss Snark Literary Agent" (!) and others whose names I don't recognise. Suing the SFWA is almost guaranteed to get an article in Publishers Weekly, so notability will be further confirmed there. JulesH 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - this is becoming a widely-discussed issue, and a wikipedia article on it would be helpful. Bias should be addressed through editing, not outright deletion. --Spudtater (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article was clearly created as an sttack piece. It did not seek to provide a balanced view of the person, but rather to detail derogatory information. Since then it has improved somewhat but it is still unbalanced and too depepndent on inappropriates sources. Perhaps a restoration followed by another AfD would be the best way of resolving the matter. -Will Beback · † · 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow article on agency; most of the claims of notability in the article pertain to the agency, not to the individual. Those that do relate to her mostly seem to do so in her role as a representative of the agency. It is the agency, not the individual, who has achieved notability, and the focus of the article should be on that. The founder's personal biographical details are not relevant. Xtifr _tälk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per above.  Grue  08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - Should have gone through AfD. --J2thawiki 12:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Additional third party source discussing Bauer (albeit briefly and in a manner rather hostile to wikipedia): http://www.israelnews agency.com/citizendiumlarrysangerwikipediawaleswoolbarhillelchapmanlibelisrael4877032807.html (delete space; for some reason this URL won't post without it being embedded) JulesH 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that "israelnews" is considered an unreliable blog whose writer has been banned from Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per JulesH and MCB, particularly MCB's point that Bauer's legal filings are a matter of public record, and the professionalism and expertise of the website owners providing factual information regarding Ms. Bauer. Noirdame 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have reopened this, as this was not a merge, but a redirect, no content was merged, nor did the closing admin mention anything about merging. This may have been closed accidentally. --Xyzzyplugh 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, should have used the word redirect. Either way, you are not requesting deletion, and no deletion occurred, so there is no need for a deletion review. GRBerry 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Admin chose to Redirect this. First of all, this was redirected without consensus, many more editors were in favor of keeping than deleting, and gave reasons for their position. Secondly, the article was removed for violating Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, while it is not at all certain that it does. Specifically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not ban articles on words, it merely says we don't have dictionary definition articles. Removing this article violates long-standing tradition, if not policy, that we don't delete articles which clearly and obviously can be cleaned up and rewritten into high quality articles, simply because they are not high enough quality yet. Why is Thou a featured article, while "The" is essentially deleted? Etymologists have written vast amounts on the word "The", and if Thou can be good enough to be a featured article, undeniably The could too, if anyone bothered to do so. Deleting an entire class of articles, those on words, automatically unless they are already high quality and well-sourced, will prevent us from ever being ABLE to improve them into high quality articles. This violates the basic process that a huge percentage of our best articles follow: low quality stub becomes ok quality stub becomes ok quality article becomes good quality article becomes good quality well sourced article becomes excellent quality sourced article. If you auto-delete a certain category of articles half way through the process, claiming that the problem is the process isn't finished yet, then how is the process ever supposed to get finished? If we want to ban all articles on words, then rewrite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary to say so, and start with Thou, a featured article, to prove we really mean it. Otherwise, this is an ok quality but not yet well enough sourced article, and we know full well there are reliable sources on this, here's one out of a large number which exist, do what we do in every other situation, keep and clean up. Xyzzyplugh 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn due to lack of consensus. Although, this is simply an editorial decision, so we should just be able to reverse the redirect - the history is there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse status quo. Redirect to article (grammar) ensures that the encyclopaedic topic of grammatical articles is kept, without the dictionary definition. Close is correct: "has potential" and "important subject" are just opinions and have no bearing on whether an article should be kept per policy. And the "in popular culture" section really was one of the worst of its kind that I can recall. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I admittedly do not fully understand the deletion review procedure - how does what you said relate to the central issue that, 1. there was no consensus to delete, and 2. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not require the deletion of articles which currently contain nothing but a dictionary definition? WP:NPOV does not insist on deletion of articles which are currently POV, WP:V does not insist on deletion of articles which currently aren't full sourced, without even trying to look for sources, why would you assume Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary requires deletion of articles which are currently a dicdef(assuming that's what this was, which is not certain either, the editors advocating Keep thought it was more)? --Xyzzyplugh 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by me: It is possible that I have not fully understood the deletion review process, in terms of the way I wrote the above. As it may be that I am merely supposed to explain how the deletion process was not followed properly: This article does not warrant deletion due to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:WINAD does not insist on the deletion of all articles on words. The fact that Thou, an article on a word, is a featured article, is the clearest possible evidence of this. Since WP:WINAD only requires deletion of articles which can never be anything more than a dicdef, and this clearly can be more, then no deletion is required by WP:WINAD. As no other reason for deletion was ever given, and as the presence of reliable sources clearly meets WP:V or WP:A or whatever we're using today, and as there was no consensus to delete, deletion(redirection) was inappropriate and should be overturned. --Xyzzyplugh 15:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If restored, this article really should not have an "In popular culture" section. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DRV not needed because the article history still exists and the article is not protected. This can be handled by the standard editing process (and dispute resolution if it comes to that). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• technically not needed but the ed. bringing the DRV was not unreasonably confused because the effect of a redirect is almost the same as a deletion: it removes the staus of an article, and it removes the material. Potentially controversial redirect have a review process of their own--was this followed? was the ed. in question made aware of it? Finally, does appeal lie from Redirects for discussion to DR? DGG 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet troll squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe that the article was neither an "attack" nor an original research. It summarized the investigations of Russian and Polish journalists and activists. The article's editor attributed all the paragraphs to the respective publications. I cannot find a Wikipedia policy mentioning the term "attack". The omnipresence of scabrous comments in the Russian online forums is evident. There are known cases of impersonation of Russian opposition figures and distortion of their statements.

I think instead of deleting the article, one should add more reliable sources to it such as court decisions. Perhaps, expanding the scope of the article to libel cases of vague origin would help. The article already included a reference to the work of Polyanskaya that mentions a court case of libel of Starovoitova.

On my part, I have translated from Russian a bio stub of Nikolai Girenko, a murdered Russian ethnograph who testified in court cases against nationalist groups. I am mentioning this article here because it shows the scale and nature of attacks against the civil dialogue. ilgiz 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here official decision on personal attack made by this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Again_personal_attack_by_Biophys. 08:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB.

I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn obvious consensus to keep on AfD, and another outrageous deletion by User:A Man In Black.  Grue  08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the AfD was a trollfest, Grue's amusingly hysterical assertion notwithstanding. But we could relist semiprotected if anyone thinks it's worth the effort. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that most of those who voted "keep" are trolls? That's "hysterical assertion" if I saw one. What happened here is User:A Man In Black, who doesn't know jack about Russian or Polish politics, completely ignoring opinions of people who do. That's what I call "systemic bias", which we're supposed to counter, not encourage more.  Grue  14:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote count. >Radiant< 11:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist for the reasons I've presented above in this undelete request. ilgiz 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, AfD is also no place for ignoring votes and discriminating users' opinion. The discussion was NOWHERE NEAR a "delete" consensus.AlexPU 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, clearly no consensus for a deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Overturn. I have posted my opinion here User_talk:A_Man_In_Black/Archive20#Deletion_of_Internet_squads_article, and I am working toward improving the article under a different name. More sources are added, primarily about similar "Internet teams" in China. It would be great if Ilgiz (who perhaps knows this subject better than me) and other editors could help to improve the article.Biophys 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as stated already, this is from the AFD page, section titled, How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." not to mention the Admin's comments on the page, "I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping." Betaeleven 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist - I believe there was some consensus to delete in the original debate - unless I am missing/miscounted something there were more !votes to delete. That said, there was more than a little confusion going on there and it wouldn't hurt to try and build a more solid consensus one way or another. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was made aware of Ukrained (talk · contribs) stumping for votes in e-mail on ANI, as well as this article being used as a brush with which to smear Wikipedia users. The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources and the fact that the claims made were not supported by the sources, and these arguments were poorly refuted by keep comments, if refuted at all. Thanks for the laugh, though, Grue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The delete comments highlighted the low quality of the sources". OK, let's see if it's really the case, or you're making it up on the spot:
    • "Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either" (great argument)
    • "Looks like a conspiracy theory to me." (aka WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    • "It's surely a conspiracy theory."
    • "OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition." (aka TLA alphabet soup)
  • There were actually 7 sources, most of them inline. The delete arguments like "WP:NOR" are self-defeating. You made your decision based on some WP:ANI rumor, and closed the debate without even reading it. Just admit it, because we all know it's true.  Grue  21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• relist. We obviously did not have a proper discussion of this in the first place. DGG 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of the article. (1) Users Biophys, Ilgiz, Colchicum and CBR prepare new out of Wikipedia canvassing for this article. Please see the following messages: Message one, message two. I would like to stress that these users continue their out-of-wiki canvassing right there. I think they have attracted more users now. (2) As I am Russian speaking guy, I would like to notice that Biophys esentially links his article to three sources. First, eye for an eye publication which alleges that users of some forums are FSB employees, no evidence is given. Second source translation of the article by Polyanskaya which repeats the same pattern - asserts that some internet users are from FSB without any evidence. Third source is a fiction (Anastasia) written by some dissident. There are no any conclusive sources. if this is a Wikipedia, I believe we should cite not the yellow press, not the hoax reportes like UFO-nauts, but serious sources. While internet and e-mail spying is implemented in US and EU after September 11th, and everyone knows about that, we don't need to represent such an article about Russian using these dubious sources. If it would be an authoritative newspaper - that would be another case. (3) This article initially was created by Biophys in order to proclaim me (Vlad fedorov) and administrator Alex Bakharev, FSB employees for our position on some edits to the relative articles. If this article would be created, I feel that Biophys would behave uncivil to us and would continue his uncivil personal attacks. Vlad fedorov 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vlad, just what the heck do you mean by those diffs??? If users are just requesting each others mails - do they conspire to break Wikirules? If they are writing each other - should they be punished only for this? Presumption of guilt? ADMINISTRATORS!!! THIS USER SEEMS TO BE CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP, SPYING AND POLITICAL PROFILING ON WIKIPEDIA! IMHO, HE SHOULD BE PERMABANNED FOR DISRUPTION A.S.A.P.!!!AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I speak Russian too. So you should be honest with the naive Westerners, and I'll be watching you :)AlexPU 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a very naive Westerner:Vlad fedorovis of course very uncivil in his argumentation, but anyone who doubts that e-mail is being used by these people to evade blocks, to attack fellow Wikipedians and, (specifically the point Vlad wants to make but getting lost in indignation), to canvas for votes: [8]. --Pan Gerwazy 13:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sense! How this new diff is relevant to discussion here? Your Vlad was talking of another editor and another situation! Please remove your post ASAP.AlexPU 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, I've never received any mail or other messages about the article in question. BUT! Look what I got: "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote." [9] They got a bunch of such reservations there. So, no rule for a decision huh? If you're against my admin POV, I'll invent a rule for you anyway? "Everything for my friends, law for my enemies"? Huh? My opinion: BLOCK THAT "MAN IN BLACK" FOR CENSORSHIP! BTW, I should be reading rules regularly... Maybe some of admins that often block me would appear to be rulesbreakers themselves:)AlexPU 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on user AlexPU. Please see the following discussion between Biophys (author of the article about Internet troll squads) and this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexPU#Could_you_give_me_a_piece_of_advice.3F . It follows that AlexPU was attracted by Biophys to this voting out of Wikipedia using e-mail.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! BURN A MAN IN BLACK AT THE STAKE!

Typically, vote counts are ignored when it's clear that someone is actively influencing the vote count. If the solicited users had come in with convincing arguments, that'd be fine, but closing admins typically ignore the mass of numbers when it's clear that someone was stumping for votes.

By the way, Ukrained isn't being blocked or anything (at least, not by me and not to my knowledge); the "votes" he stumped up were simply ignored except insofar as the users made convincing arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name the users whose opinions you ignored, and provide the proof that they were asked by User:Ukrained to vote as they did?  Grue  20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reports of solicits in e-mail, in both the AFD and on ANI, motivated me to ignore the vote count entirely. If you're asking how many noses I counted, the answer is zero. I ignored everyone's "vote" since the vote was clearly tainted and evaluated the arguments. There's no reasonable way to figure out exactly who was solicited and who was not, nor any particularly good reason to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The main argument still is that it is an attack page, and what is worse - the canvassing and the reactions of the people being canvassed prove that they not only want to keep it, but they want to keep it that way. WP:BLP and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --Pan Gerwazy 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Attack against whom? Original AfD nominator said: "Essentially an attack page against Putin". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_troll_squads. But it is not attack page against any specific person, as anyone can see looking at the article.Biophys 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should think about your trying to rig the voting in Wikipedia twice. Everything is evident about personalities of the individuals attacked from the Adminstrators noticeboard and your now deleted comments. I think that no one here would let you spit on the face of decent Wikipedia editors.Vlad fedorov 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It is an attack page, a WP:OR galore and a WP:BLP infringement. We had enough problems with conspiracy pages (*cough* 9/11 *cough*) to not restart them. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The rationale was clear, and some of the above comments make it clearer. DGG 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looks clear enough to me that. I agree with the rationale to delete.--Dycedarg ж 19:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per JzG and others. Unsubstantiated libels against active politicians have no place in Wikipedia. I am very surprized by the attitude of Grue, which I find rather unhealthy. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Important notice. User Biophys is going to make a new article on "Internet Troll Squads". Please see his stub here User:Biophys/tutorial.Vlad fedorov 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not want to get involved in this personal feud between you two (in fact, I find its very existence utterly abhorrent), but I would like to mention here what I mentioned on the talk page of that draft. I think the article may have a place on wikipedia if it is mentioned in the introduction that the existence of this is alleged, not an undisputable fact. I believe that it is notable (it seems to fulfill the primary criteria), but those sources, as far as I can see, do not conclusively prove it. It is notable for being an idea which has been written about and for being part of Russia's political landscape, but it shouldn't be presented as a fact. My main hobby is creating film articles, so I see no problem with writing an article about potential fiction, or even downright lies. That shouldn't be a consideration - what should be considered is whether this idea is influential. The sources seem to suggest that it is. As such, it should be written about from the perspective of not endorsing this accusation but of presenting it much as one would present the theories in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Note: I came to know of this article from Portal:Russia/New article announcements page. Esn 08:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to your comment:Yes and by making Wikipedia a storage place for the yellow press, X-files, allegations and hearsays, you also give to some crazy people ground to state that this Wikipedia editor is working for KGB. We would all thank you for this after someone here would be called KGB agent. The author of this article wasn't bothered for very long period after its creation, I never complained that this article was OR, or had unreliable sources. I complained after Biophys alleged and wrote section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?"

diff, where he ignited discussion of the peronalities of Wikipedia editors. And this article was created by Biophys specifically for this purpose. I asked admins to check my IP and IP of Alex Bakharev, to confirm that we are not even from Russia. You, Esn, is not administrator and as such you cannot guarantee that Biophys and his friends won't start these violations of Wikipedia policies again. Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, that is not relevant to this deletion discussion. Second, what you are saying is factually wrong. It was an anonymous user who started that discussion, and I only reacted to his/her accusations. See: Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration.Biophys 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad, I would like to remind you that it is not wikipedia policy to prevent the creation of articles about notable subjects if those subjects are likely to be vandalised. If we start doing that, the vandals have already won. Courage is needed, dear editor, not fear and appeasement. If the article is recreated, I promise to put it on my watch list (as will many others, I don't doubt) and revert any attacks against you or other wikipedia editors that may pop up. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further comment: Any accusations against wikipedia editors, be it Vlad fedorov or anyone else, must be removed from the article immediately. This should not be a consideration on whether the article is to be kept or not. It doesn't matter one single bit why the article was originally created - what matters is whether its subject matter could have a place on wikipedia. I'm not qualified to judge this, but I notice that it survived a deletion discussion on the Russian wikipedia back in January 2006, and that the "keep" decision was unanimous. Esn 08:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Russian Wikipedia is notorious for low quality articles, so don't advertise it here.Vlad fedorov 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creation of the article, proposal for speedy deletion, vote on it, keep decision all happened on the same day. Most of the votes came after the article was marked both as POV and aa a Conspiracy Theory. Crucially: the very creator of the page (Jaro.p) provided a link to a Russian source calling it a dubious conspiracy theory. So there obviously was a willingness to make it NPOV. Note that the title of the Russian article is also far more neutral,a nd at one time had a interwiki link to "web-brigade" on English wikipedia. We are 1 year later now, the Russian article now has a chapter "Kritika", is still marked Conspiracy Theory, and I have not heard anything in the news all that time. --Pan Gerwazy 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article should remain deleted. It's clear that whoever was its author had a crucial lack of info on Runet, Russian segment of the Internet. ellol 06:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think last part of this discussion misses the point. How can this article be violation of WP:OR (the reason for deletion) if it cited the following multiple reliable sources: ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Not only this phenomenon is well known in Russia (hence the article in Russian Wikipedia and discussions of this subject in Runet by a Russian State official and numerous bloggers ^[4]), such teams have been reportedly created by departments of provincial and municipal governments in mainland China: the "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names" in 2005 ^[5]. Applicants for the job were drawn mostly from the propaganda and police departments. Successful candidates have been offered classes in Marxism, propaganda techiques, and the Internet. "They are actually hiring staff to curse online," said Liu Di, a Chinese student who was arrested for posting her comments in blogs ^[5]

Biophys, these "sources" do not fall under the WP:RS criteria. They're all allegations, with some people thinking: "there is a discrepancy between people that should be present in the forums and views that people post, then basically these must be FSB agents in disguise). If this was a legal investigations (which it isn't of course), such an "evidence" would have absolutely zero value. "I heard someone saying..." stuff is nothing but conspiracy theories.

As for China, well, it's out of scope for this article. China filters Internet (and Wikipedia), Russia does not. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's discussed in newspapers, Wikipedia should have an article about it, even if it is a conspiracy theory. And looking just at the title of the article, I can't say why China is outside of its scope. Are you saying China doesn't have Internet at all?  Grue  15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: "verifiability, not truth". No any court investigation or "evidence" required for sources in Wikipedia. Not only all these sources satisfy WP:RS, but at least two of them are notable (Guardian Unlimited and Tygodnik Powszechny) and the claims came from notable people: Grigory Svirsky and Liu Di. As for China, everyone can read the source and see what it says: "teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names". Of course, this article was not only about Russia, and I emphasized this at the talk page during the deletion discussion. Biophys 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to repeat that again: verifiability, not truth. This is very important. If you will argue against this article, please base your arguments on wikipedia policy. If you don't like those policies, ask to change them on their talk pages. This is not the place for asking to change wiki policies. Esn 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm adding my vote to overturn or relist. I fail to see how this is any different than the 9/11 conspiracy theories article - same basic premise. As long the article is NPOV, I see no problems. It will be a target for vandalism - as all such articles are - but as I said previously this should not deter us. We must fight against vandals by doing exactly what they do not wish us to do. Esn 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Internet troll squads" gets a whopping 6 Ghits, nuff said. This being said, if someone is able to come up with a good NPOV version of the article (and NOT centered around Russia like the previous one used to be), then fine. But restoring the article as it is is just too risky imho. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. An article on the topic is possible but this one was unrepairable, starting from the title all the way to the content. When the deletion is debated, it is important to keep in mind that the issue is not whether the article about something along these lines is in principle possible, but whether the article at hand can be used as the basis for a possibly encyclopedic article this is to become. If the acceptable article would have to be written from scratch, the original article can be deleted no matter how encyclopedic the topic is. And it should be deleted if it looks like an ax grinding exercise created under deliberately inflammatory unencyclopedic and non-descriptive title. Users who keep repeating like mantra that WP:RM should not be confused with AfD or that the article simply needs an improvement and this is the issue of editing rather than of the deletion need first to see whether the article at hand is of any use for such hypothetically encyclopedic article. If not, than delete, even if the topic has a potential. Byophys seems interested in the topic. That's his right. He can write a new version under the new title and if he needs something that was in the article for his work on the future one, he can request any admin to restore it in his userspace. But no way that piece under that name could be restored. --Irpen 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically you agree that the topic can support a wiki article, but feel that it should be created under a new name? Wouldn't that be grounds for speedy deletion - the recreation of a previously deleted topic? Esn 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and rename. There was no consensus to delete, and renaming seems like the best way to address the problems caused by the rather unwise name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Sure, we can rename article as Internet brigades (as in Russian Wikipedia) or Internet squads (no "trolls"!) if you think this is better. I thought "squads" is better, because "brigade" is a large military detachment, and I thought "troll" is related to Troll (Internet). Biophys 21:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. So, can I recreate the article right now under a slightly different name and make it as neutral and encyclopedic as possible? Biophys 22:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this topic hasn't been closed yet (despite being moved into the archives), I'll add another comment. I must say that the article badly needs attention from someone - and prefferably someone who reads Russian - who will cut the bias out of it. It is still rather biased and inadequate, but in more subtle ways - for example, the way it's currently sourced makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to verify much of the FSB section. The "eye for an eye" source, in particular, is given as a source for a whole bunch of statements, but it is extremely long and made up of various sections. Specific sections should be given as a source, rather than the whole thing. Also, the name "internet brigades" seems like a neologism, so perhaps the name "secret internet police" (which was used in the Guardian article) would be best. I'm still not sure how much meat is there behind the allegations, but I would like this to be discussed (and prefferably for some time) because at least some of it is legitimate. Esn 04:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, trouble is that if you try to cut the bias, you will get reverted by Biophys and it will be another edit war... Besides, reading Russian, I can tell you that there is not much meat behind those allegations. Basically, it is no different from the yellow press idiotics about flying saucers, vanished civilizations, torsion fields and all similar crap. The main "argument" worth more than $0.01 is the supposed discrepancy between the social categories using internet and the views one can see on fora. Trouble is, no one did a serious study on a subject, therefore people like Polyanskaya implicitely suppose that everyone having Internet and commenting on Russian-speaking forums would necessarily be a partisan of liberal views. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, no! So far, I could negotiate changes with any editor except Vlad Fedorov who deletes well referenced texts. By the way, you Grafikm, made a couple of reasonable comments with regard to Boris Stomakhin, so I tried to reflect them in the article. So far, I inserted only one word in the changes already made by Esn. Anything consistent with wikipedia rules is fine.Biophys 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Don't mix things that shouldn't be. Boris Stomakhin is a real guy, sentenced by a real tribunal (rightly or not, that's another question), so everything is "real", so it is not surprising that I tried to settle the dispute between you and Vlad on sources, interpretations and stuff. Here, we're talking about a possible conspiracy that no one managed to prove so far, so it's not the same thing by a league. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems to me that the topic satisfies the general notability criterion. Wikipedia has articles on both UFOs and vanished civilizations because they have been written about by notable people, so it shouldn't be a consideration whether the allegations are true or not. This seems to be the case here - even if the allegations are false, they seem to have appeared in notable publications. What is real here is not necessarily the allegations, but that the allegations have appeared in important places. As such, it is my view (unless someone presents convincing evidence to the contrary) that it is not against wikipedia policy to have an article about them, as long as the article makes it clear that there is some doubt about their truthfulness. It would be helpful, for example, if some sources critical of this view were also found - they could then be added in. There's one currently (on the FSB accusations) but he's apparently a government employee (?). A rebuttal from a more neutral source, if one could be found, would be a good thing to add. Esn 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Smirking Chimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The recent MFD discussion on GNAA's "war on blogs" led me to check whether several prominent weblogs I had heard of had been deleted as a result of such activity. I found at least two blogs that were deleted when, pretty clearly, they shouldn't have been. Note that these undeletions are not being proposed for personal political reasons; one of the blogs (Rottweiler) is far-right while the other (Chimp) is far-left.

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler's deletion discussion appears to have a solid consensus... but it turns out a lot of those voters were actually GNAA members, some of whom (including GNAA founder Timecop) are now banned from Wikipedia. The discussion on AFD should be re-run and kept free of single-purpose or bad faith accounts. The existing discussion can't reasonably be said to reflect an accurate consensus of Wikipedia users.

Smirking Chimp's deletion discussion had two keep votes and two delete votes. That is far from a consensus to delete. It's one of the few redlinked blogs on the lists found on our Political blog article. There is a metric ton of Google hits.

At the very least, both these articles should have a real, full discussion on AFD before they're deleted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, smirking chimp is a favourite of mine, or was at one time anyway, but the article as deleted had only one source: smirking chimp. No prejudice against a rewrite which satisfies notability criteria by reference to reliable secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both deletions, reasons as given above. Additionally the AfD on the first mentioned article is rather old - perhaps it would be more constructive to re-create the article, properly sourced and written, starting from scratch rather than digging up old graves? Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just noticed that The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler was speedy deleted per A7 and G11 back in December. Without knowing what the content was it's hard for me to judge but that seems to reinforce the original AfD asserting a lack of notability and sourcing. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn both and relist. I am glad someone checked the list. It became clear that the deletions sponsored by this self-admitted cabal need review with more careful attention. DGG 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. One AFD result was influenced by sock and meat puppets and the other didn't have a concensus. At the very least they need to be given a fair chance. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I'm not at all sure that either will pass an AfD, but they at least deserve a fair discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion --Tbeatty 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the basis of new information. Restore and keep for a few days (i.e., do not relist immediately) to allow for article improvement. Relist after a reasonable time if articles still are unsatisfactory. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At AfD, they get five days. I think that should be enough, if there's anything to justify a keep. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, definitely a troubling case, but AfD seems like the best way out. Xtifr _tälk 01:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina McHale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

This information does validly cite its sources and there is no false information on this page. All information on wikipedia on Christina McHale can be found elsewhere on the internet so there is no reason to delete it. This is not an invasion of privacy because this information is already out on the internet and it was cited properly and posted on wikipedia for a biography. Please undelete this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitiful (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion. The main thrust of the requests was that the article failed to satisfy the notability guidelines, not that the article is false or uncited (which it must be as well). Also, "other people who know Christina McHale personally" does not constitute a reliable source. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, valid AfD, no new information. Speedy close, review requested by a sockpuppet of currently blocked Worthadonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]